[Senate Hearing 113-726]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-726
PROMOTING THE WELL-BEING AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-246 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAN COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN E. WALSH, Montana
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 9, 2014..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Coats....................................... 58
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 64
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 78
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 81
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 82
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 84
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 88
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 90
Witnesses
Myron Laurent Rolle, Student-Athlete, Florida State University
College of Medicine............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Devon Jahmai Ramsay, Former College Football Player, University
of North Carolina.............................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Taylor Branch, Author and Historian.............................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 19
William D. Bradshaw, Past President of the National Association
of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of
Athletics (NACDA).............................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Dr. Richard M. Southall, Associate Professor, Department of Sport
and Entertainment Management and Director, College Sport
Research Institute, University of South Carolina............... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Dr. Mark A. Emmert, President, National Collegiate Athletic
Association.................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Appendix
Letter dated August 4, 2014 to Hon. John Thune from Mark A.
Emmert, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association.... 97
PROMOTING THE WELL-BEING AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order, and I want
to thank all of you very much for coming here. You're a bit
squeezed in there but water is on the house.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So be comfortable, and be glad.
College sports has an absolutely extraordinary position in
the culture of our country. Not only have college sports
inspired incredible fan passion all across the country but they
have provided a very important way for young men and women to,
as is written, both do athletics as an avocation and get an
education. We are going to talk about that today.
For many young people, however, athletics has provided an
avenue to college that would have otherwise not have existed,
and it is important to understand that.
College athletes and athletics are rooted in the notion of
amateurism. The history of that is very interesting and
important, going back to the founding of the NCAA in 1906 and
all the rest of it and going back, actually, to the Greek's
concept of amateurism.
Playing college sports is supposed to be an avocation.
Students play college sports for the love of the game not for
the love of money. That is the ideal but many people believe
this notion of college sports as being undermined by the power
and the influence of money.
I remember a meeting I had in my office with the three top
executives of ESPN and it was one of those meetings in which I
didn't say a word because they just went around in circles,
each talking about what a great business model they had and how
they had the control and the power that no other broadcast
system would ever have and how thrilled they were with it, and
how they were going to make it even stronger.
There's a growing perception that college athletics,
particularly Division I football and basketball, are not
avocations at all. What they really are is highly profitable
commercial enterprises. They believe that.
Critics of big-time college athletics say that the goal of
these programs is not to provide young people with a college
education, but to produce a winning program that reaps
financial rewards for the athletic departments and their
schools. It is not, however, about the students; they're part
of what generates the money.
It's about capturing the billions of dollars of television
and marketing revenues that college sports do generate. And it
will generate even more.
Colleges and universities say that these revenues benefit
college athletes and their student bodies at large. But I think
we have to consider whether the lure of such riches could
corrupt the basic mission of athletic programs. Winning teams
get higher payouts than losing teams which creates a strong
incentive to win--an incentive which land-grant public
universities and others are more than happy to follow. And win
at any cost.
Much of the money is often funneled right back into those
sports programs in the form of multimillion-dollar coaching
salaries and state-of-the-art facilities--many of them paid for
by the taxpayers to perpetuate the cycle of winning. I think
somewhere in my reading here, about $48 million of all the $900
million that NCAA gets from their broadcasting--March Madness
and all the rest of it, a very small portion--goes specifically
to academics. But even that is hard to figure because nobody
has the figures.
Mr. Emmert works for them. They make the decisions. He
carries out what they want and, yet, I think a subject of
discussion is: how does he carry out what they want? What
powers do you have, Mr. Emmert, for actually carrying out what
you think is a good idea? You've been president of three major
universities, different places. Then, I would think, your
passion for education would need to show itself.
Athletics to me are meant to serve schools and their public
duty to educate students, not the other way around. That's the
way it's always put forward and that's the way it should be.
Dr. Mark Emmert is here to present the perspective of the
colleges and universities that belong to the NCAA and I would
like to thank you for testifying. You could have declined to do
so. Some do, but you didn't. And I'm grateful for that.
I believe that you were put at the helm of the NCAA because
you have impressive academic credentials and a sterling
reputation. And I think that we all appreciate that you're
extremely well compensated. Your commendable individual
qualities and capabilities are not what trouble me. I think I'm
just very skeptical that the NCAA can ever live up to the lofty
mission that you constantly talk about, and which is written
and printed in speeches and statements and responses to Penn
State this or something else that. The mission--nothing comes
before education--is always there but the actions don't appear
to be.
I don't see how the NCAA will ever be capable of truly
making a safe, good education experience for students its
number one priority. I want you to tell me that I'm wrong, that
I am wrong and that I'm particularly wrong about the future.
But I'll be a tough sell.
I think we believe that the NCAA has largely been left to
its own to determine what reforms are appropriate and how to
accomplish its mission. As we continue to learn more about what
goes on at some major universities and colleges, we want to
know if the NCAA is seriously considering how college athletes
are faring under this system. Not just living as they do but
injured as they often become, racked by poverty if they don't
do well and maybe their stipends are cut off. And is there an
advantage in a mandated four-year scholarship. All of these
things are put at play.
How are young men, who strap on their helmets on a football
field in front of 100,000 passionate and paying customers, how
are they doing? How are young men who lace up their shoes and
play basketball for March Madness, which consumes the nation,
is deliberately spread out over a long period of time so that
no kid, 12 years or 10 years or over, can ever hope to do any
homework because there's always basketball on?
Are colleges and universities living up to their end of the
bargain in providing them with a good education? Are these
young athletes entitled to any of the billions of dollars that
are reaped from their athletic services? And when young men and
women put their bodies at risk from playing sports for their
schools, whether women's lacrosse or men's soccer, do they have
adequate health insurance? I don't know. I don't know.
And I never go into a restaurant or a barber shop or
anything without asking, sometimes to their discomfort, ``Do
you have health insurance?'' Because I know the answer is going
to be no. And I care about health care and I get very unhappy
when people who work in places don't make a lot of money, don't
have health insurance.
Do the schools and athletic leagues sufficiently minimize
the risk of concussions? And what happens to a student who is
injured before graduation? Can he or she finish out their
studies or does the scholarship run dry?
Well, a couple of months ago, we all heard the deeply
troubling comments of Shabazz Napier, the talented University
of Connecticut guard who was the most valuable player of the
2014 NCAA basketball tournament. In the midst of a tournament
that generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for
the NCAA and its members, Mr. Napier talked about how sometimes
he did not have enough to eat during college. How did college
sports benefit Mr. Napier on the nights he had to go to bed
hungry?
Now, you can look at that two ways. So there he is, he's
trying to pick out a sensational example of a famous athlete
and turn it into some very large problem. I'm not trying to do
that. I think it is a problem. And the whole sense of giving
students a safety net and a sense of confidence that, if they
don't turn out to be as good running backs or point guards or
whatever and they don't make the team or they're let off in
their third year. Are they dropped? Do they get the
scholarships or what happens? I don't know.
The title of today's hearings is ``Promoting the Well-Being
and Academic Success of College Athletes.'' I want to have an
objective, open-minded and frank discussion on this subject.
I'm going to try my best to. The NCAA has the same goal as I
do.
Dr. Emmert is going to tell us that the NCAA's mission is
to protect college athletes from abusive practices and
exploitation and to promote college sports as a means towards
achieving academic excellence.
Today, I want to explore whether the NCAA is fulfilling its
mission. We still hear too many reports of fraudulent
academics. We still hear too many tragic stories of former
college athletes who have absolutely nothing to show for the
services they provided even though they helped generate
millions and millions of dollars. This subject is often
discussed, but I'm here to tell you that--and if perchance the
Democrats should control the Congress next time, and nobody is
quite sure of that, John Thune has one idea, Bill Nelson has
another idea, and you. Yes, okay.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And that I think that we want to continue
this. We want to make this a continuing surge of this oversight
committee. We have jurisdiction over sports--all sports. All
sports. And we have the ability to subpoena; we've created a
special investigations unit. We're very into this subject. I
personally am. I think our members are. And so, this is the
part of a process here.
So I'm going to have some tough questions for our panel: is
the NCAA and its member schools: is it simply a legal cartel;
have college sports become a multibillion-dollar commercial
enterprise which is no different than the other corporate
witnesses who have appeared before this committee; or is the
NCAA truly different; and does the 100-year-old organization,
in fact, have the best interest of college athletes? They're
large questions and important to be answered.
I turn now to my very distinguished Ranking Member, Senator
John Thune, from the state of South Dakota.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing today. And I want to thank our panelists for the
opportunity to examine the current state of collegiate
athletics. And, like you, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses including the President of the National Collegiate
Athletic Associate on how the NCAA and its member institutions
are fulfilling the commitments made to our collegiate student-
athletes.
I'm an avid sports fan and I know other members of this
committee are as well. As a former basketball player in high
school and college, and the proud father of a daughter who
competed at the Division I level, I certainly recognize that
participation in organized sports not only requires physical
and mental strength, but also teaches teamwork and other skills
that serve you throughout life. However, the college student-
athlete is, and should be, a student first. Colleges and
universities must remember and prioritize their academic
obligation to student-athletes.
As the popularity of college sports has grown, particularly
the popularity of college football and men's and women's
basketball, so too has the profitability of many collegiate
athletic programs. In the current environment, the stakes have
been raised both for the student-athlete who wants to succeed
and for the university that has a financial interest in winning
games. Increasing revenues for some schools in conferences, due
in large part to lucrative contracts for the broadcast rights
to football and basketball games, have become more common.
Revenues from ticket sales and merchandising efforts for some
schools are also significant. And, of course, alumni want to
see their teams win, and may be inspired to contribute to
winning programs.
As we'll hear today, the NCAA is a member-driven
organization whose stated mission is ``to integrate
intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the
educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.''
However, a major criticism of college sports is that some
institutions appear unable to balance the core academic mission
of the university and the commercial considerations that often
accompany college athletics, particularly in high-profile
sports. Many feel the commitment to the student-athlete is
falling short.
Another point of contention involves athletic scholarships
and whether the practice of offering annual, as opposed to
multiyear, scholarships unfairly places student-athletes at
risk of losing their scholarships as a result of poor-
performance or injury. But, while multiyear scholarships may
benefit student-athletes, they may disadvantage smaller schools
who can't match the resources of larger institutions.
Clearly, collegiate athletics in America is not without
controversy, and we will hear from some of the NCAA's most
vocal critics today. While I'm sure that today's hearing will
highlight a host of important issues, I hope we will not lose
sight of the positive impact that amateur athletics has made on
the lives of countless student-athletes. And we must remember
that college athletics is not just about football and
basketball.
The Director of Athletics at the University of South Dakota
recently shared the results of the student-athlete exit
interviews he conducts annually to evaluate the school's
athletic program for the vantage point of the athletes
themselves. He underscored two stories that stood out from this
past year's athletes.
The Athletic Director at USD reiterated how Dustin Gens, a
sophomore diver at USD, recovered from open-heart heart surgery
to qualify to dive at the NCAA's Zone Championships, a feat
that would not have been possible without the work of a
dedicated training staff, academic support, coaches, team, and
family. He also noted the moving story of Hanna Veselik, a
sophomore swimmer, who leaned on friends, family, and teammates
to help her through the tragic loss of her father who passed
away early in the season. With this support, Hanna was able to
return to the pool and achieve lifetime best times in all of
her swimming events at the Summit League Championships.
As the USD Athletic Director puts it, ``These two are just
a sample of what college athletics should mean. If you strip
away the money, fancy locker rooms, charter flights, and large
budgets, you're left with student-athletes who often have to
overcome personal, social, economic, academic, and athletic
adversity, all just to compete. But they frequently do it with
passion and a determination that makes us all proud.'' That's
from the Athletic Director at the University of South Dakota.
Recognizing the challenges exist, it is my hope that the
NCAA, its member institutions, the student athletes themselves,
and other stakeholders will seek solutions that promote the
education, health, and well-being of student athletes and seek
to preserve amateurism in collegiate athletics. This is an area
where Congress can provide a forum, but the solutions are most
likely to come from those most directly involved in the
education and development of student-athletes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing, and
I look forward to hearing and having an opportunity to question
our witnesses. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
What we are going to do now is we are going to hear the
testimony. And then, both Senator McCaskill and Senator Booker,
both of whom are sterling and wonderful people, are going to
get very, very angry at me. Because I'm going to charge into
the regular order and I'm going to allow Senator Coats to ask
the first question, which violates all the rules of the
Committee but----
Senator McCaskill. Oh, I'm mad.
The Chairman. That'll make you a better questioner.
Senator Booker. As the most junior member on the Committee,
I must say that Senate rules do not allow me to be mad at you,
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coats. And, Mr. Chairman, for what it's worth, I
was under the impression, also, that we were the first to
arrive and ask questions in order. So I arrived at 2:10----
The Chairman. See?
Senator Coats.--just so I can be first.
The Chairman. What am I going to do?
[Laughter.]
Senator Coats. Because I didn't want to put you in a bad
spot or breach the rules either.
The Chairman. You never do and you are wonderful. So you
will ask the first questions after the two of us.
Mr. Rolle, and thank you for being here.
And don't be nervous.
STATEMENT OF MYRON LAURENT ROLLE, STUDENT-ATHLETE, FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Mr. Rolle. OK.
The Chairman. I mean it.
Mr. Rolle. All right.
The Chairman. It's a wonderful opportunity to say what's in
your heart and on your mind.
Mr. Rolle. Yes, sir.
First, I want to thank you and the Committee for inviting
me here today to share some of my experience and knowledge on
this very important subject, very complicated subject as well.
I've had many conversations with fellow student-athletes on
this issue about the current role of student-athletes today in
this giant scheme of collegiate athletics. And we often walk
away from those conversations with more questions than answers.
So I'm hoping today is a first step toward answering some of
those questions and providing some context and some clarity to
this discussions so that we can see our student-athletes
receive maximum edification in all aspects of their person, be
it a student, and athlete, a leader, and a man and a woman.
That's very important to me.
I want to start my remarks by beginning at the genesis of
my story. My parents are from the islands of the Bahamas, my
brothers are as well. I was born here in the states and I was
raised in New Jersey. I went to high school in Princeton, New
Jersey.
And after my school days in Princeton, I would go over to
the university and I saw this big poster, a statue, and
trophies of this guy who became my hero. His name was Bill
Bradley. He was just a rock star, in my opinion, an epitome of
what a student-athlete ought to be; college basketball
American, best player in college at a school like Princeton,
Hall-of-Famer, a U.S. Senator, and a Rhodes Scholar. That's the
first time I heard those two words, Rhodes Scholar, used in the
same sentence.
And once I finished high school in Princeton, I had 83
scholarship offers to go anywhere I want to to play football
and I was rated the number one high school prospect in the
country by ESPN. I decided to go to Florida State. And when I
got to Tallahassee on campus, first thing I did was go to the
Office of National Fellowships and told them that I wanted to
be a Rhodes Scholar like my hero Bill Bradley. If he did it, I
want to try and do it as well. And so, 3 years later, I was
fortunate to earn that scholarship.
Then, I went to see my teachers and academic advisors at
FSU and tell them that I want you guys to help increase my
intellectual capital so 1 day I can be an outstanding pediatric
neurosurgeon, like another one of my influences, Dr. Ben
Carson. Now, I'm a second year medical student hopefully able
to do that in the future.
And last, I went to my strength coaches and my athletic
trainers and my football coaches, Bobby Bowden included, and
told them that I want them to equip my body and get me ready
for a career as a national football player. And fortunately, I
was able to be drafted by the Titans and play for the Steelers
as well.
Now, it may sound like my story is pristine and ideal, and
maybe used as the poster child for which you want a collegiate
student-athlete to have experienced, but I will say that my
story is quite rare and unique. And some people even call it an
anomaly because, outside of Senator Cory Booker, the last major
Division I football player to earn a Rhodes Scholarship was a
guy named Pat Haden. And that was in the 1970s, he played at
USC, and played for the Las Angeles Rams as well as a
quarterback.
There are very few student-athletes who I've come in
contact with that have had the same infrastructure as I've had;
the family support, had the foresight, not come from a broken
school system in high school, and not come from a broken family
who are able to engage in their college experience and maximize
their time.
Many more of my teammates and friends and fellow student-
athletes struggled in the college environment; they struggled
mightily, struggled economically. Because, now, with the
scholarship stipend that they receive they became, believe it
or not, the main breadwinners for their families and would have
to send some of their scholarship money home to take care of
their immediate and extended family.
They also struggled academically as well. A lot of them
would go through this academic machinery in their colleges and
be spit out at the end of that machine left torn, worn and
asking questions, and with really no direction, no guidance, on
where they should go; no purpose, no idea of their trajectory
and sometimes left with a degree in hand that didn't behoove
any of their future interest.
So I hope today we can shed light on this aspect, as you
said, Chairman Rockefeller, that we are really pouring energy
and life and money and exposure, and highlighting on TV, the
life of the athlete. But I believe that we're still falling a
bit short of edifying and improving, augmenting, the aspect of
the students; the person, the man, the woman, and even the
philanthropist and the leader.
And I believe if we can do that, we can not only see our
student-athletes at these major schools go on to be productive
athletes in the professional ranks but, more importantly, be
productive leaders and citizens that go on to be leaders of
industry and leaders of men, leaders of women, and just really
have an indelible impact as they go on into their future.
So thank you for having me here. And I'm looking forward to
joining this discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rolle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myron Laurent Rolle, Scholar-Athlete, Florida
State University College of Medicine
Introduction
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the
Committee, it is a pleasure and a blessing to have this opportunity to
be in your presence and present my thoughts on a compelling matter
concerning college athletics. Let me first thank you and your wonderful
staff for the invitation.
In the confines of academia, I am what is commonly referred to as a
``Scholar-Athlete.'' I wear that mantle proudly and I strived each day
to be an outstanding person, student and athlete. As my career has
transitioned, I am today striving to be the best medical student I can
be at The Florida State University College of Medicine with a view to
being a pediatric neurological surgeon. I used the values my parents,
Whitney and Beverly Rolle, instilled in me at an early age and in my
brothers, as the foundation for my growth and the light to the path of
life. In our household, education superseded sports and our Christian
faith superseded all. The message was very clear and understood. My
parents taught me how to value life, education, respect authority,
treat others as you would like to be treated, respect our elders, serve
our community, set lofty goals and never say never. These principles
have made me who I am today.
Academic and Athletic Background
Before I address the collegiate athlete compensation issue, let me
briefly recap my academic and athletic careers as this may shed light
on my thoughts on the subject matter of concern.
In primary, high school and college, I took an active role in
student life outside of athletics. I served as a student leader in all
levels of my academic life. I was Student Council President in both
Primary and High School. I served as Vice President of our Student
Athlete Advisory Council at FSU. I was editor of my primary and high
school newspapers. I played the baritone saxophone, participated on
Brain Bowl Teams and played the lead role of Tevye in Fiddler on the
Roof. I spent hours visiting the elderly in Absecon Manner in Galloway,
New Jersey, where I grew up and served Habitat for Humanities in
Florida and West Virginia during my high school years at The Peddie
School and The Hun School.
My athletic career started on the playing fields at Gabriel Fields
and basketball courts throughout South Jersey. I was athletically
gifted and participated at a high level in Baseball, Basketball, Track
and Football. By the time my high school career was over, I was ranked
the Number One High School Football Player in America by ESPN.
At Florida State University, I started at strong safety on a full
athletic scholarship throughout the three years I spent at FSU. I
earned both academic and athletic All-American honors. We will discuss
FSU later in this conversation.
In 2010, I was drafted in the sixth round of the NFL draft by the
Tennessee Titans and remained in the NFL for three years.
I recently completed my first year as a full-time medical student
at Florida State University College of Medicine.
Influences
At an early age I felt I knew what I wanted in life. I wanted to
serve. Today, I envision myself as a combination Servant and
Transformative Leader.
At the Smithville School in Galloway, New Jersey we studied the
nervous system. This intrigued me to the extent that my older brother
bought me a book ``Gifted Hands'' by Ben Carson. I completed this book
in 3 days and I was hooked. I knew I wanted to be a neurosurgeon. My
parents encouraged me and allowed me to participate in a very valuable
program The National Youth Leadership Forum on Medicine--where I spent
time during my high school breaks at LSU and Tulane University
shadowing doctors and being exposed to the medical profession as it
truly is performed.
Another life changing episode in my young life happened while at
The Hun School of Princeton. The Hun School is minutes away from
Princeton University where one of your former colleagues, Senator Bill
Bradley was an outstanding All-American Basketball Player and also a
Rhodes Scholar. While I did not have definitive plan as to how to
accomplish what Senator Bradley accomplished, it set my thoughts in
motion. During my recruitment by all of the major Universities, I
emphasized education was my priority and football would be secondary.
Florida State University accepted this condition and I was allowed to
pursue my academic endeavors without hindrance and thus my connection
to the Office of National Fellowships. The relationship with the Office
of National Fellowships allowed me to make the dreams that Senator
Bradley's accomplishments instilled in me to become a reality and my
earning the Rhodes Scholarship in 2009.
Serving my community was indeed an active part of my life. As I
grew and matured, I wanted this aspect of my life to continue. Using
the platform that my FSU career and the Rhodes Scholarship provided, I
along with my family, formed The Myron L Rolle Foundation whose mission
statement embodies my very being--``Dedicated to the support of health,
wellness, education and other charitable initiative throughout the
world that benefit children and families in need.'' We have annually
hosted for five years the Myron Rolle Wellness and Leadership Academy
at Camp Blanding, Starke, Florida for foster children in the State of
Florida. We have conducted the ``Our Way To Health'' program for Native
Americans in Florida, New Mexico and Arizona, Rhodes to Success program
in Florida and now a Bahamas version of the Myron Rolle Wellness and
Leadership Academy.
College Life
I spent three full years at FSU immersed with the football program
and players with the exception of a six week period that I spent in
Europe at FSU's London Study Centre Abroad, graduated magna cum laude
from FSU in two and one-half years and won the Rhodes Scholarship in my
final year. As a member of the football team, we trained during the
off-season and during the season together, we spent much of our down-
time together, enjoyed off-campus life together, we studied together
and generally lived together. During this period, I was able to
participate in student life as a normal student by being involved in
extra-curricular activities including pledging for my Fraternity, Kappa
Alpha Psi, participating in human mesenchymal stem cell research and
serving an executive role in Seminole Student Boosters.
Because of the unique position in which I placed myself at FSU, I
was able to see both sides of the student-athlete challenges, conflicts
and now the controversial positions relative to compensating college
athletes.
I can appreciate the traditional arguments from the University
perspective that they are providing one a full-four year scholarship
that values in excess of US$250,000.00 or the claims from non-athlete
students that the athlete is taking a position that a more qualified
non-athlete student should have occupied. There are many legitimate
arguments to support the University's and non-athlete student's
positions. However, there is an equally compelling argument from the
athletes.
Let me talk about a few scenarios that I have personally experience
and one shared with me second-hand.
Playing football in a major university program is almost like a
full time job. There is very little margin for error in managing your
time. Typically during the season, your day begins with either a 5:00
or 6:00 AM work-out in the weight room or a study session at the
football facilities. This is followed by getting dressed and breakfast
between 7:00 and 8:00 AM. After breakfast, most players have morning
classes that can take you through the morning and up to 1:00 PM. Lunch
is normally at an on-campus restaurant or cafeteria. There may be a
little down-time between lunch and the time you must be at the
facilities. If you have an injury, you make every effort to get that
treated during this down-time. Around 2:30 PM or 3:00 PM, players
report to their section meetings dressed. Around 4:00 PM players report
to the field for practice that can last anywhere from 1\1/2\ to 2\1/2\
hours. After practice the players shower and clean-up for supper that
is around 6:30 or 7:00 PM. Depending on the situation, there may be
position meetings after supper or study sessions. A player normally
could leave the facility between 8:00 PM and 9:30 PM and return to his
dorm or apartment where he must study his films as well as his class
work. Bed time could be any-time between 11:00 PM and 1:00 AM. At 5 or
6:00 AM the process repeats itself. As you can see a significant
portion of the football players day is consumed by football and at the
football facility.
The University provides a small monthly stipend to the athletes to
cover food and rent at a minimal but acceptable living standard. Many
of my team mates struggled to make ends meet on a monthly basis. Why
you may ask? Many of the athletes come from deprived economic
backgrounds where they must support their families back home so that
the family could survive. Many of them take a portion of their
allowance and send it home to support their family. If by chance an
unplanned child is involved, the athlete must provide for that child as
best he can. With the schedule delineated above there is no possible
chance the athletes can take a second job to supplement his monthly
stipend.
Here are some of the issues and challenges the athlete and
University face. The vast majority of the athletes are not prepared and
ready for the rigorous and regimented life style of college football.
In high school they were promoted socially and not provided the tools
to navigate their way through an intense college curriculum that will
provide for them once the college or NFL careers come to an end. The
vast majority of college football players' careers end when their
college eligibility ends. There are a few and a small select group who
manage to make it to the NFL and survive where they can create
financial security for their family. The universities are pressured to
accept marginal students in order to remain competitive and share in
the enormous wind-fall of bowl and television revenues.
While many athletes enter college ill-equipped, the universities
have excellent educational support systems that manage to keep the
athletes eligible. The universities provide the opportunities for the
athletes to change the trajectory of their and their families' lives.
Some embrace this opportunity and others do not. My argument with
universities is that they should evaluate each case on its own merit
and develop a program where the individual's dreams and passion are
channeled into the direction where once a course of study is completed
the athlete becomes a productive citizen maximizing his or her skills.
Compensation to Athletes
Compensation to athletes is an administrative nightmare but time
has come to walk through the door and in the words of Spike Lee ``Do
the right thing''. I am a proponent of compensating athletes. All
college athletes should be compensated but not at the same level.
However, I believe athletes in revenue generating sports should be
compensated more than those in non-revenue generating sports.
There are many who struggle with the idea of paying college
athletes. Maybe a Managed Fund should be set-up that will be available
to the athlete upon graduation or some criteria that demands some level
of academic accomplishment from the athlete. This Managed Fund could be
an outstanding way to fiscally support the continued education of the
student-athlete once their playing days cease. A portion of the overall
revenues generated from the product within which the athletes
participate should fund the Managed Fund. A certain portion for non-
revenue generating sports should also be set-aside.
It is my view that there should be a mechanism in place to address
the immediate needs of the athlete who struggles with the standard
monthly stipend. Maybe the monthly stipend needs to be increased or a
means test be developed to ascertain the economic immediate needs which
could carefully be deducted from the Managed Fund.
Paying college athletes is the right thing to do and now is the
right time to do it. Once we sharpen the mechanism in which to deliver
this novel system, I believe we will see more successful student-
athletes making significant contributions beyond the playing field.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very, very much.
And now, Devon Ramsay.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DEVON JAHMAI RAMSAY, FORMER COLLEGE FOOTBALL
PLAYER, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Ramsay. Good afternoon, Chairman Rockefeller.
The Chairman. Devon, right? Yes.
Mr. Ramsay. Good afternoon, Chairman Rockefeller and
members of the Committee. It is an honor and a pleasure to have
this opportunity to be in your presence and share my story and
thoughts on the current state of college athletics. Let me
first thank you and your staff for the invitation.
I was born to Sharon Lee and Devon Anthony Ramsay on
December 8, 1988 in Red Bank, New Jersey. My mother always
valued a strong education and sent me to the Rumson County Day
School, which was a Blue Ribbon private winning school that
covered kindergarten through eighth grade. At Rumson, I
excelled in the classroom and participated in athletics. And by
the time it was for me to leave, I had the opportunity to go to
the Lawrenceville School, which is right down the road in
Princeton where I played against Myron.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ramsay. I decided this would be the best academic and
athletic environment for me. I would go on to have a successful
academic and athletic career, graduating in 2007. And I decided
to sign my letter of intent to go to the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. And what drew me to that school was
not only its esteemed reputation as a top academic institution
but also as the new hire of then new head coach, Butch Davis.
This showed that the university had an all-around commitment to
excellence.
Now, my career at the University of North Carolina has been
one filled with adversity. I've undergone five surgeries, been
through three head coaches, and been asked if I wanted to
transfer or if I wanted to take a medical redshirt. However,
despite all this, I managed to succeed, being named an
offensive starter for another 6 years and, by NFL draft analyst
Mel Kiper, named the top three in my position.
But most importantly, I got my degree in public policy with
a concentration of business. After graduating, I moved back to
Red Bank, where I would pursue my hopes of making an NFL team.
However, I didn't make the team at Tampa Bay.
Now, in the summer of 2010, two of my teammates had
violated NCAA rules and attended a party thrown by sports
agents. The University of North Carolina then launched their
own investigation into the matter and discovered several
potential counts of academic fraud. After the final practice of
the week, before we played Clemson, I was told to report to one
of the conference rooms and brought in for questioning by
University officials. Before the questioning began, I was told
that this conversation would be recorded and was asked if I
needed a lawyer. I thought I had been called in there to see if
they could find any more leads for the investigation, but then
they began to ask me about my definition of academic fraud,
academic dishonesty and plagiarism. And that is when they
brought up a two-year-old e-mail correspondence between myself
and a tutor. In the said e-mail, I ask the university's tutor
for help with grammar and overall quality in the paper. And she
replied by adding four to five sentences to a two and half page
paper.
They ask me if this is the exact same paper I turned in.
However, I couldn't remember since it was 2 years ago. In the
following 4 weeks that I was held out of competition, they sent
me to the University's Honor Court. And the Attorney General of
the Honor Court said that there was no case here; that there
wasn't enough evidence. They had no final version of the paper,
it wasn't submitted electronically and, I don't know, most
people don't keep papers from 2 years ago.
As I was being held out by UNC, an official from the
compliance office proposed that if I were to plead guilty after
being held out for so many games, that the NCAA would, in fact,
allow me to play. At this time, I believe that the UNC's
compliance office which was very well-versed in NCAA policy.
However, it was a shocking blow that the NCAA then ruled me
guilty of academic fraud which strips away my remaining
eligibility and tarnishes my reputation.
After coming to the realization that UNC was more concerned
with penalties and losses of scholarships than protecting one
of its own, my mother and I set out to find lawyers that would
hopefully have my best interests at heart. However, none would
stand against the NCAA nor its membership.
Fortunately for me, Robert Orr, a State Supreme Court
judge, reached out to my mother after reading an article that
she had been involved with in The News and Observer. Without
Judge Orr's legal knowledge and tenacity, I would have no one
to turn to. As we went through the appeals process, which was
possible with the endorsement of the University of North
Carolina, the leadership at UNC once again wanted me to take a
plea for a reduced sentence. However, Judge Orr, my mother and
I needed to have my name unsullied. By going back and looking
at the original interview, reviewing a lack of evidence and
disregarding the guided testimony, the NCAA overturned its
ruling and reinstated my eligibility.
Unfortunately, the first game of the next season, I tore
three ligaments in my knee. After receiving my sixth year of
eligibility, I was not able to return to the field of play
until my final game; which I participated in two plays.
Now, one of the things that was, looking back at my career,
that I wish I could have partaken in was in internships. A few
of my friends from Lawrenceville went on to play at the Ivy
League. It's not as demanding as, you know, high-level Division
I football. They were allowed to go and pursue other things
during the summer. And upon graduation, some of my friends got
great job offers.
An internship gives you direction, teaches you valuable
life lessons and prepares you for a level of professionalism.
At a competitive football school, completing an internship is
almost impossible. In order to be eligible to receive your
scholarship stipend during the summer and granted aid, if
you're eligible, one was if you were enrolled in a certain
number of credit hours. I've seen several teammates attempt to
manage school, summer workouts and their internship. Most of
these athletes ended up quitting their internship because of
the sheer level of exhaustion experienced on an average day.
Only one was able to complete this internship because it
counted towards his credit hours so he wasn't required to go to
any classes.
At the University of North Carolina, football players are
one of the only teams not allowed to participate in University
camps, which would hone skills for those that would want to get
into coaching and create another source of income. In fact,
during a panel discussion about the documentary ``$chooled: The
Price of College Sport,'' Head Coach of the George Mason men's
basketball team Paul Hewitt stated that his team has to do an
internship before they graduate a mandatory one. I think this
is a great practice.
If the NCAA truly wants to develop student-athletes and
prepare them for success off the field, then they should
mandate that all athletes complete an internship. The reason it
needs to be mandated is because there exists a culture that
demonizes any activity that won't directly help a program.
Players that go home for a semester, and I had friends that had
done this, are labeled as selfish and lazy and almost a cancer
to the team. But, in fact, he's just going home. He's still
working out. He's just trying to improve his own value for the
likelihood that he's not going to make the NFL.
I've come to realize that there is a void in college
athletics. The NCAA, as an institution, no longer protects the
student-athlete. They are more concerned with signage and
profit margins. As I was called up to the initial meeting with
UNC's investigators, I wasn't aware that I needed to defend
myself against my university and the NCAA. And, as a student, I
lack the resources and the knowledge to defend myself against
an 80 year-old institution. My family lacked the resources to
hire a lawyer. And if I refused to be interviewed, I would have
been held down until I testified.
In the NCAA, college football players have a very small
window of opportunity to prove our worth to the NFL. Therefore,
every game you miss is a lost opportunity and a means to
devalue your worth. There needs to exist an entity that quickly
and effectively advocates for the student-athlete. I was
extremely fortunate that Judge Orr reached out to my family to
help. However, it terrifies me how many students might have had
their eligibility unjustly taken and their reputation damaged.
The student-athlete has a short career and is an amazing
new, renewable resource. And because of that, the NCAA is able
to take advantage of naive young men and women. There needs to
be an organization that will, in fact, protect the college
athlete and has no ties to the financial being of the
universities or to the NCAA. Allowing the NCAA continue to
intimidate schools and athletes is dangerous and unfair. To
quote a famous Roman poet, ``Who will watch the watchmen?''
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Devon Ramsay, Former College Football Player,
University of North Carolina
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Rockefeller and Members of the Committee,
it is an honor and a pleasure to have this opportunity to be in your
presence and share my story and thoughts on the current state of
college athletics. Let me first thank you and your staff for the
invitation.
Academic and Athletic Background
I was born to Sharon Lee and Devon Anthony Ramsay on December 8th
1988 in Red Bank, New Jersey. My mother has always valued a strong
education and sent me to the Rumson County Day School, a Blue Ribbon
winning private school that covered kindergarten through the eighth
grade. At Rumson, I excelled in the classroom and participated in
athletics. By 2003, My achievements at Rumson County Day School
garnered the attention of many prestigious boarding schools along the
east coast. I decided to attend the Lawrenceville School, an elite
preparatory and boarding school outside of Princeton New Jersey. This
would be the best environment academically and athletically. At
Lawrenceville, I would go on to have a successful academic and athletic
career graduating in 2007. In 2007, I signed a letter of intent to
attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. What drew me to
this amazing school was its esteemed reputation as a top academic
institution and the hire of then new head coach Butch Davis. This
showed that the University had an all around commitment to excellence.
My career at the University of North Carolina has been one filled
with adversity. I have underwent five surgeries, been through three
head coaches, have been asked if I wanted to transfer and if I wanted
to take a medical redshirt. However, despite all the adversity, I have
managed to succeed being named an offensive starter for four out of my
six seasons, named as one of the top three fullbacks in the country by
NFL Draft Analyst Mel Kiper Jr. and most importantly attaining a degree
in Public Policy with a concentration in business. After graduation, I
moved back home to Red Bank, where I pursued my dreams of making an NFL
team. I would get an opportunity with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers;
however, I did not end up making the roster.
NCAA Case
In the summer of 2010, two of my teammates had violated NCAA rules
and attended a party thrown by sports agents. The University of North
Carolina then launched their own investigation into the matter and
discovered several potential counts of academic fraud. After the final
practice before we are to play Clemson, I was told to report to one of
our conference rooms and brought in for questioning by University
officials. Before the questioning began and was told that this
conversation would be recorded and I was asked if I needed a lawyer. I
thought I had been called to see if they could find any more leads in
the investigation. They then proceed to ask my definition and
understanding of plagiarism. After which the investigators presented a
two year old e-mail correspondence between myself and a tutor. In said
e-mail, I ask the university's tutor for help with grammar and overall
quality. She replies by adding four sentences to a two and half page
paper.
They began to ask me if I turned in the paper as the tutor sent it
and I couldn't remember since it had been two years for a two and half
page paper. In the following four weeks that I was held out of
competition, I was sent to see the Attorney General of UNC's Honor
Court who came to the conclusion that since there was no final version
of the paper present, this case would not go to trial due to lack of
evidence.
As I was being held out by UNC, an official from the compliance
office proposed that if I were to plead guilty after being held out for
so many games that the NCAA would in fact allow me to play. At this
time, I believed that UNC's compliance to be well versed in NCAA
policy. It was a shocking blow when the NCAA had ruled I was guilty of
``academic fraud'' which strips away my remaining eligibility and
tarnishes my reputation. After coming to the realization that UNC was
more concerned with penalties and loss of scholarships than protecting
one of its own, my mother and I set out to find lawyers that would
hopefully have my best interests at heart. However, none wanted to
stand against the NCAA nor its membership. Fortunately, Robert Orr, a
former State Supreme Court judge, reached out to my mother after
reading an article in The News and Observer. Without Judge Orr's legal
knowledge and tenacity, I would have no one to turn to. As we went
through the appeals process, which was only possible with the
endorsement of the University of North Carolina, the leadership at UNC
once again wanted me to take a plea for a reduced sentenced. However,
Judge Orr, my mother and I needed to have my name unsullied. By going
back and looking at the original interview, reviewing a lack of
evidence and disregarding the guided testimony, the NCAA overturned its
ruling and reinstated my eligibility. Unfortunately, the first game of
the next season, I tore three ligaments in my left knee. After
receiving a sixth year of eligibility, I was not able to make a return
to the field of play in my final game.
Internships
A few of my friends from the Lawrenceville School went on to play
football in the Ivy League and one of the things I noticed and admired
is that they were able to participate in assorted internships during
their summers and upon graduation received great job offers. An
internship gives you direction, teaches you valuable life lessons and
prepares you for a level of professionalism. At a competitive football
school, completing an internship is almost impossible. In order to be
eligible to receive your scholarship stipend and grant in aid (if
you're eligible) one must be enrolled in a certain number of credit
hours. I've seen several teammates attempt to manage school, summer
workouts and their internship. Most of these athletes ended up quitting
their internship because of the sheer level of exhaustion experienced
on an average day. Only one was able to complete his internship because
it counted towards his credit hours. At the University of North
Carolina, football players are one of the only teams not allowed to
participate in University camps, which would hone skills for those that
want to get into coaching and create another source of income. During a
panel discussion about the documentary ``$chooled: The Price of College
Sport,'' Head Coach of the George Mason Men's Basketball team Paul
Hewitt stated that his team has to do an internship before they
graduate. I think this is a great practice. If the NCAA truly wants to
develop ``student athletes'' and prepare them for success off the
field, then they should mandate that all athletes complete an
internship. The reason it needs to be mandated is because there exists
a culture, that demonizes activity that won't directly help a program.
Players that go for a semester are labeled as ``selfish'' and ``lazy'',
when in fact he is only improving his value for the likelihood that he
will not make the NFL.
I have come to realize that there is a void in college athletics.
The NCAA as an institution no longer protects the ``student athlete''.
They are more concerned with signage and profit margins. As I was
called up to the initial meeting with UNC's investigators, I wasn't
aware that I needed to defend myself against my university and the NCAA
and as a student I lacked the resources and knowledge to defend myself
against an eighty year old system. My family lacked the resources to
hire a lawyer and if I refused to be interviewed I would have been held
out until I testified. In the NCAA, college football players have a
small window of opportunity to prove their worth to the NFL. Therefore,
every game you miss is a lost opportunity and a means to devalue your
worth. There needs to exist an entity that quickly and effectively
advocates for the ``student athlete'' I was extremely fortunate that
Judge Orr reached out to my family to help. However, It terrifies me
how many students might have had their eligibility unjustly taken and
their reputation damaged. The ``student athlete'' has a short career
and is an amazing renewable resource and because of that the NCAA is
able to take advantage of naive young men and women. There needs to be
an organization that will in fact protect the college athlete and has
no ties to the financial well being of the Universities or to the NCAA.
Allowing the NCAA to continue to intimidate schools and athletes is
dangerous and unfair. To quote a famous Roman poet, ``Who will watch
the watchmen?''
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to taking your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay. We
appreciate it a lot.
Mr. Taylor Branch is from Baltimore. He is an author and an
historian. And he has written one of the, what I call, five
best books ever written in terms of my own reading preferences,
about the civil rights movement and the development of it. And
he's also an expert on this subject and has written
extensively.
We welcome you, sir.
STATEMENT OF TAYLOR BRANCH, AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN
Mr. Branch. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Thank you, members of the Committee, guests, sports fans and
educators. I am honored to be here.
The subject for your hearing today, college sports and the
well-being of college athletes, is full of mine fields and
myths. I hope to offer some summary comments for possible
discussion under three headings: amateurism, balance and
equity.
Amateurism has become the distinguishing feature of NCAA
governance. It is identified in official pronouncements as the
bedrock principle of college athletics. The NCAA Bylaws define
and mandate amateur conduct as follows: ``Student athletes
shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their
participation should be motivated primarily by education and by
the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student
participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and
student athletes should be protected from exploitation by
professional and commercial enterprises.'' That's NCAA Bylaw
2.9.
The word ``amateur'' reflects conflicted attitudes about
money, youth, and the purposes of recreation. Its broad
ambivalence has opened a muddled flexibility in public habits,
allowing the United States to become the world's only nation to
develop commercialized sports at institutions of higher
learning. Even the major universities involved, which were
founded to uphold intellectual rigor, routinely ignore or
excuse the contradictions of a multibillion-dollar side
industry built on their undergraduate students.
Confusion and mythology begin with the word itself.
Dictionary synonyms for ``amateur'' range from a wholesome
``enthusiast'' or ``devotee'' to a bumbling ``dabbler'' or
``rookie.'' Merriam-Webster gives a stinging illustration of
the latter tone: ``The people running that company are a bunch
of amateurs.'' Accordingly, the same word expresses praise and
scorn without distinction. This ambiguity gains reinforcement
in our uniquely designed popular world of sports, where fans
are encouraged to cheer and boo without thinking objectively.
The ideal of ancient Greek amateurism has always been
misleading, because the athletes of Olympus actually competed
for huge prizes. Aristotle researched well-rewarded champions
back through records of the earliest Olympic festivals. And
modern scholars have confirmed evidence of high-stakes victory
and loss. ``Ancient amateurism is a myth,'' noted the
classicist David Young. ``Purists who refused to mix money with
sport did not exist in the ancient world,'' concludes Michael
B. Poliakoff, ``and victors' monuments boast of success in the
cash competition as openly as they boast of victory in the
sacred contests.''
Golf legend Bobby Jones is enshrined in modern sports
history as the ideal, as the model amateur, and gentleman who
decline every championship prize he earned. His reputation fits
the true definition of amateur, which is derived from the Latin
``amator'' or ``lover,'' specifying one who chooses to pursue a
skill out of subjective devotion rather than the hope of
financial gain. Some non-college sports still allow athletes to
declare and renounce amateur status.
Significantly, students themselves called themselves
amateurs when they invented intercollegiate sports after the
Civil War. Until 1905, students retained general control of the
new phenomenon in everything from scheduling and equipment to
ticket sales. They recruited alumni to construct Harvard
Stadium in 1903 with zero funds from the college. ``Neither the
faculties nor other critics assisted in building the structure
of college athletics,'' declared Walter Camp, Yale class of
1880, who became the father of college football in his spare
time.
The NCAA, created in 1906, slowly transformed the amateur
tradition inherited from college athletes. Its board declared a
goal of total faculty control as late as 1922, and the weak
NCAA organization could not hire its first full-time staff
member until 1951. After that, however, burgeoning revenue from
television contracts allowed NCAA officials to enforce amateur
rules as an objective requirement rather than a subjective
choice. This is problematic because attempts to regulate
personal motivation and belief commonly run afoul of the
Constitution. Even if internal standards were allowed, and
somehow could be measured, NCAA rules contradict the key
requirement that college sports must be an avocation, or
calling, which comes from ``vocare,'' to call, and ``vox,''
voice, by denying athletes an essential voice. NCAA rules
govern the players by fiat, excluding them from membership and
consent.
Balance. Checks and balances are required for sound
governance, and the NCAA structure is unbalanced in at least
four basic respects. First, NCAA enforcement suffers an
inherent conflict of interest between alleged violations in
football as opposed to basketball, because the organization
lost its television revenue from college football and is almost
wholly dependent on a sole-source broadcasting contract for the
March Madness basketball tournament.
Second, the NCAA structure creates a false impression of
common practice between the very few schools that aggressively
commercialize college athletics, roughly 100 to 150 of some
1,200 NCAA members, and the vast majority of schools with small
crowds and negligible sports revenue. An elastic NCAA
amateurism stretches all the way from a Division III cross-
country race to Notre Dame Football on ESPN.
Third, NCAA officials resolutely obscure differences
between commercialized sports and the academic mission on
campus. In the classroom, colleges transfer highly valued
expertise to students, but this traditional role is reversed in
big-time sports. There, athletes deliver highly valued
expertise to the colleges. This distinction is basic and
fundamental to your Committee's stated purpose of promoting
educational integrity. College athletes are, or should be,
students in the classroom and competitor players in the
athletic department. They face multiple roles in careers like
many Americans, but their conflicting demands cannot be managed
or balanced unless they are squarely recognized. The NCAA
undermines this logical separation by insisting that sports are
an educational supplement for a hybrid creature under its
jurisdiction called the student-athlete. Universities
implicitly concur by offloading some of their academic
responsibility to the NCAA.
Fourth, the NCAA and its member schools strip rights from
athletes uniquely as a class. No college tries to ban
remunerative work for all students, and no legislature could or
would write laws to confiscate earnings from one targeted group
of producers in a legitimate enterprise. On the contrary,
universities sponsor extensive work study programs, and
student-citizens everywhere exercise freedom to market skills
everywhere from bookstore jobs and pizza delivery to the
entrepreneurial launch of Facebook, unless they are athletes.
For college athletes alone, the NCAA brands such industry
unethical.
Equity. Basic fairness requires attention to the rights and
freedom of participants above the convenience of observers.
Applied to college sports, this principle would mean that no
freedom should be abridged because of athletic status. While I
am neither a lawyer nor a professional economist, I find ample
historical evidence that experts object to collusion in the
NCAA's regulatory structure.
In Microeconomics, a prominent textbook, professors Robert
Pindyck and Daniel Rubinfeld make the NCAA a featured example
of an economic cartel that reaps anti-competitive profit. The
courts have agreed in two landmark cases. In NCAA versus Board
of Regents of the University of Oklahoma in 1984, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down the NCAA's exclusive control of
college football broadcasts as an illegal restraint of trade.
Overnight, the major football schools won the freedom to sell
every broadcast their markets would bear, without having to
share proceeds with the smaller schools through the NCAA. ``We
eat what we kill,'' bragged one official at the University of
Texas.
In Law v. the NCAA, 1998, assistant coaches won a $54
million settlement along with an order vacating the NCAA's
$16,000 limit on starting salaries. The compensation of
assistant football coaches has cracked the $1 million barrier
since then with salaries skyrocketing even in non-revenue
sports. By 2010, the University of Florida paid its volleyball
coach $365,000.
Thus, the supervisors of college sports have won economic
freedom, and they enjoy enormous largesse from a distorted
cartel marketplace that now shackles only the most vital
talent: the players. ``To reduce bargaining power by student
athletes,'' wrote Pindyck and Rubinfeld, ``the NCAA creates and
enforces rules regarding eligibility and the terms of
compensation.''
NCAA officials, of course, steadfastly assert that their
whole system is devoted to the educational welfare and benefit
of the college athletes. ``Football will never again be placed
ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,''
NCAA president Mark Emmert, sitting near me, vowed when he
announced NCAA sanctions for the recent scandal at Penn State.
Such professions must be reconciled somehow with NCAA rules
that systematically deny college athletes a full range of
guaranteed rights from due process and representation to the
presumption of innocence. These rules can turn words on their
head, like Alice in Wonderland. The NCAA's bedrock pledge to
avoid commercial exploitation of college athletes, for
instance, aims to safeguard them from getting paid too much, or
at all, rather than too little in the ordinary usage of the
word exploit, to use selfishly for one's ends, as employers who
exploit their workers.
In closing, I would suggest one hopeful precedent from the
past work of your Commerce Committee. This is not the first
time that the governance of amateur sports, together with the
education of college athletes, has presented a daunting tangle
of passions and vested interests.
Fifty years ago, an early bonanza in sports revenue
intensified the bitter feud between the NCAA and the Amateur
Athletic Union, AAU, which controlled access to the Olympic
Games. AAU leaders accused an ``unpatriotic'' NCAA of
sabotaging U.S. chances to win medals. They claimed that
college athletes already were paid, and therefore not amateurs
at all since the NCAA approved athletic scholarships in 1956.
NCAA officials retorted that AAU coaches were parasites on
college training facilities.
These two sides nitpicked, boycotted, sabotaged, and
disqualified each other until President Kennedy enlisted no
less a mediator than General Douglas MacArthur to foster U.S.
hopes for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. The squabbling exhausted
MacArthur, who recommended a Blue Ribbon commissions that
brought proposals eventually to this committee.
Your predecessors shaped what became the Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act of 1978. One key provision of that law
secured for active athletes a 20 percent share of the voting
seats on each of the 39 new U.S. Olympic Committees. Though
small, this representation soon transformed amateur sports.
Granted a voice, athletes tipped the balance on governing
committees in the United States and inexorably around the
globe. Marathon races, then tennis tournaments, recognized a
right for players to accept prize money and keep their Olympic
eligibility. New leagues sprang up to popularize volleyball and
other games with corporate sponsors. Olympic officials came to
welcome professional competitors in every sport except boxing.
By 1986, when the International Olympic Committee expunged
the word amateur from its bylaws, the modified games defied
every prediction of disasters. Indeed, most people scarcely
don't notice the change. Some of you helped recognize success
in the revised Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of
1998.
This example suggests a good place to start. Wherever
possible, make athletes true citizens rather than glorified
vassals in college sports. Where markets extend into college
sports, make them fair and competitive. Recognize the rights,
uphold the rights, of college athletes. Give them a voice, and
challenge universities, in turn, to make wise, straightforward
decisions about the compatibility of commercialized sports with
education.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Branch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Taylor Branch
Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Senator Thune. Thank
you, members of the Committee. I am honored to be here.
My name is Taylor Branch, from Baltimore, Maryland. My educational
background includes an AB degree in history from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1968) and an MPA (Master of Public
Affairs) degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University (1970. Since 1976, I have
made my living primarily as an independent author of books.
Pertinent to the title for your session today, ``Pursuing the Well-
Being and Academic Success of College Athletes,'' I wrote a capsule
history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for the
October 2011 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, entitled ``The Shame of
College Sports.'' Because of widespread public debate that ensued, I
expanded the Atlantic article into a digitally published e-book called
The Cartel, and I proposed a short ``Three-Point Reform Agenda for
Sports in Higher Education.'' The agenda is available on my website at
http://taylorbranch.com/2012/06/14/a-three-point-reform-agenda-for-
sports-in-higher-education/.
What follows are summary comments for possible discussion under
three headings: Amateurism, Balance, and Equity.
Amateurism
``Amateurism'' has become the distinguishing feature of NCAA
governance. It is identified in official pronouncements as ``a bedrock
principle of college athletics \1\.'' The NCAA Bylaws define and
mandate amateur conduct as follows: ``Student athletes shall be
amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be
motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social
benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate
athletics is an avocation, and student athletes should be protected
from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.\2\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Opening sentence of the NCAA website page headed, ``Office of
the President, Remaining Eligible, Amateurism,'' at www.ncaa.com.
\2\ NCAA Bylaw 2.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word ``amateur'' reflects conflicted attitudes about money,
youth, and the purpose of recreation. Its broad ambivalence has opened
a muddled flexibility in public habits, allowing the United States to
become the world's only nation to develop commercialized sports at
institutions of higher learning. Even the major universities involved,
which were founded to uphold intellectual rigor, routinely ignore or
excuse the contradictions of a multi-billion-dollar side-industry built
on their undergraduate students.
Confusion and mythology begin with the word itself. Dictionary
synonyms for ``amateur'' range from a wholesome ``enthusiast'' or
``devotee'' to a bumbling ``dabbler'' or ``rookie.'' Merriam-Webster
gives a stinging illustration of the latter tone: ``The people running
that company are a bunch of amateurs.'' Accordingly, the same word
expresses praise and scorn without distinction. This ambiguity gains
reinforcement in our uniquely designed world of sports, where fans are
encouraged to cheer and boo without thinking objectively.
The ideal of ancient Greek amateurism has always been misleading,
because the athletes of Olympus actually competed for huge prizes.
Aristotle researched well-rewarded champions back through records of
the earliest Olympic festivals, and modern scholars have confirmed
evidence of high-stakes victory and loss \3\. ``Ancient amateurism is a
myth,'' noted the classicist David Young.\4\ ``Purists who refused to
mix money with sport did not exist in the ancient world,'' concludes
Michael B. Poliakoff, ``and victors' monuments boast of success in the
cash competitions as openly as they boast of victory in the sacred
contests.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Michael B. Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1987, pp. 3, 131.
\4\ David Young, The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics.
Chicago: Ares Press, 1985, p. 7.
\5\ Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golf legend Bobby Jones is enshrined in modern sports history as
the model amateur, and gentleman, who declined every championship prize
he earned. His reputation fits the true definition of ``amateur,''
which is derived from the Latin ``amator,'' or ``lover,'' specifying
one who chooses to pursue a skill out of subjective devotion rather
than the hope of financial gain.\6\ Some non-college sports still allow
athletes to declare and renounce amateur status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, students called themselves amateurs when they
invented intercollegiate sports after the Civil War.\7\ Until 1905,
students retained general control of the new phenomenon in everything
from schedule and equipment to ticket sales. They recruited alumni to
construct Harvard Stadium in 1903 with zero funds from the college.\8\
``Neither the faculties nor other critics assisted in building the
structure of college athletics,'' declared Walter Camp (Yale class of
1880), who became the ``father'' of college football in his spare
time.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Joseph N. Crowley, In the Arena: The NCAA's First Century.
Indianapolis: The NCAA, 2006, p. 37.
\8\ Mark F. Bernstein, Football: The Ivy League Origins of an
American Obsession. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2001, p. 72.
\9\ Ronald A. Smith, Sports & Freedom: The Rise of Big-Time College
Athletics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 83-88, 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA, created in 1906, slowly transformed the amateur tradition
inherited from college athletes.\10\ Its board declared a goal of
``total faculty control'' as late as 1922, and the weak NCAA
organization could not hire its first full-time staff member until
1951.\11\ After that, however, burgeoning revenue from television
contracts allowed NCAA officials to enforce amateur rules as an
objective requirement rather than a subjective choice.\12\ This is
problematic, because attempts to regulate personal motivation and
belief commonly run afoul of the Constitution. Even if internal
standards were allowed, and somehow could be measured, NCAA rules
contradict their requirement that college sports must be an
``avocation,'' or calling (``vocare,'' to call, from ``voc-, vox,''
voice), by denying athletes an essential voice. NCAA rules govern the
players by fiat, excluding them from membership and consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Crowley, In the Arena: The NCAA's First Century, p. 44.
\11\ Ibid., p. 67.
\12\ John Sayle Watterson, College Football: History, Spectacle,
Controversy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 200, pp.
265-276; Paul R. Lawrence, Unsportsmanlike Conduct: The National
Collegiate Athletic Association and the Business of College Football.
New York: Praeger Publishers, 1987, pp. 71-82
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance
Checks and balances are required for sound governance, and the NCAA
structure is unbalanced in at least four respects. First, NCAA
enforcement suffers an inherent conflict of interest between alleged
violations in football, as opposed to basketball, because the
organization lost its television revenue from college football and is
almost wholly dependent on a sole-source broadcasting contract for the
March Madness basketball tournament.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Lawrence, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, p. 148; Keith Dunnevant,
The Fifty-Year Seduction. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2004, pp. 160-
167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the NCAA structure creates a false impression of common
practice between the few schools that aggressively commercialize
college athletics--roughly 100-150 of some 1,200 NCAA members--and the
vast majority of schools with small crowds and negligible sports
revenue. An elastic NCAA ``amateurism'' stretches all the way from a
Division III cross-country race to Notre Dame football on ESPN.
Third, NCAA officials resolutely obscure differences between
commercialized sports and the academic mission on campus. In the
classroom, colleges transfer highly valued expertise to students, but
this traditional role is reversed in big-time sports. Athletes there
deliver highly valued expertise to the colleges. This distinction is
basic, and is fundamental to your committee's stated purpose of
promoting educational integrity. College athletes are, or should be,
students in the classroom and competitors in the athletic department.
They face multiple roles, like most Americans, but their conflicting
demands cannot be managed or balanced until they are squarely
recognized. The NCAA undermines this logical separation by insisting
that sports are an educational supplement for a hybrid creature under
its jurisdiction, called the ``student-athlete.'' Universities
implicitly concur by offloading some of their academic responsibility
to the NCAA.
Fourth, the NCAA and its member schools strip rights from athletes
uniquely as a class. No college tries to ban remunerative work for all
students, and no legislature could or would write laws to confiscate
earnings from one targeted group of producers in a legitimate
enterprise. On the contrary, universities sponsor extensive work-study
programs, and student-citizens exercise freedom to market skills
everywhere from bookstore jobs and pizza delivery to the
entrepreneurial launch of Facebook--unless they are athletes. For
college athletes alone, the NCAA brands such industry ``unethical.''
Equity
Basic fairness requires attention to the rights and freedoms of
participants above the convenience of observers. Applied to college
sports, this principle would mean that no freedom should be abridged
because of athletic status. While I am neither a lawyer nor a
professional economist, I find ample historical evidence that experts
object to collusion in the NCAA's regulatory structure.
In Microeconomics, a prominent textbook, professors Robert Pindyck
and Daniel Rubinfeld make the NCAA a featured example of an economic
cartel that reaps anti-competitive profit.\14\ The courts have agreed
in two landmark cases. In NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of
Oklahoma (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the NCAA's
exclusive control of college football broadcasts as an illegal
restraint of trade.\15\ Overnight, the major football schools won
freedom to sell every broadcast their markets would bear, without
having to share the proceeds with smaller schools through the NCAA.
(``We eat what we kill,'' bragged one official at the University of
Texas.) In Law v. NCAA (1998), assistant coaches won a $54-million
settlement along with an order vacating the NCAA's $16,000 limit on
starting salaries.\16\ The compensation of assistant football coaches
has cracked the $1 million barrier since then,\17\ with salaries
skyrocketing even in ``non-revenue'' sports. By 2010, the University of
Florida paid its volleyball coach $365,000.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Microeconomics
(Eighth Edition). New York: Prentice Hall, 2001, pp. 480-481.
\15\ Dunnevant, The Fifty-Year Seduction, pp. 160-167.
\16\ Law v. NCAA, 134 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 1998).
\17\ Kevin Zimmerman, USC's Monte Kiffen's Salary Highest Among
NCAA assistant coaches,'' SB Nation, Dec. 18, 2012.
\18\ Joe Drape and Katie Thomas, ``As Colleges Compete, Major Money
Flows to Minor Sports,'' New York Times, Sept. 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the supervisors of college sports won economic freedom, and
they enjoy enormous largesse from a distorted cartel market that now
shackles only the most vital talent: the players. ``To reduce
bargaining power by student athletes,'' wrote Pindyck and Reubinfeld,
``the NCAA creates and enforces rules regarding eligibility and the
terms of compensation.'' \19\ NCAA officials, of course, steadfastly
assert that their whole system is devoted to the educational benefit of
college athletes. ``Football will never again be placed ahead of
educating, nurturing, and protecting young people,'' NCAA president
Mark Emmert vowed when he announced NCAA sanctions for the recent
scandal at Penn State.\20\ Such professions must be reconciled with
NCAA rules that systematically deny college athletes a full range of
guaranteed rights--from due process and representation to the
presumption of innocence. These rules can turn words on their head,
like Alice in Wonderland. The NCAA's bedrock pledge to avoid
``commercial exploitation'' of college athletes, for instance, aims to
safeguard them from getting paid too much, or at all, rather than too
little in the ordinary usage of the word exploit: ``to use selfishly
for one's ends--employers who exploit their workers.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pindyck and Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, p. 455.
\20\ Emmert quoted in Taylor Branch, ``The NCAA Entrenches Itself
as Part of the Problem,'' The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 1,
2012.
\21\ Listing for ``exploit'' at www.dictionary.reference.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I would suggest one hopeful precedent from the past
work of your Commerce Committee. This is not the first time that the
governance of amateur sports, together with the education of college
athletes, has presented a daunting tangle of passions and vested
interests. Fifty years ago, an early bonanza in sports revenue
intensified a bitter feud between the NCAA and the Amateur Athletic
Union (AAU), which controlled access to the Olympic Games. AAU leaders
accused an ``unpatriotic'' NCAA of sabotaging U.S. chances to win
medals. They claimed that college athletes already were ``paid,'' and
therefore not amateurs at all, once the NCAA approved athletic
scholarships in 1956. NCAA officials retorted that AAU coaches were
``parasites'' on college training facilities. The two sides nitpicked,
boycotted, sabotaged, and disqualified each other until President
Kennedy enlisted no less a mediator than General Douglas MacArthur to
mediate U.S. hopes for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. The squabbling
exhausted MacArthur, who recommended Blue Ribbon commissions that
brought proposals eventually to this Committee.
Your predecessors shaped what became the Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act of 1978.\22\ One key provision of that law secured for active
athletes a twenty-percent share of the voting seats on each of the
thirty-nine new U.S. Olympic Committees. Though small, this
representation soon transformed amateur sports. Granted a voice,
athletes tipped the balance on governing committees in the United
States and inexorably around the globe. Marathon races, then tennis
tournaments, recognized a right for players to accept prize money and
keep their Olympic eligibility. New leagues sprang up to popularize
volleyball and other games with corporate sponsors. Olympic officials
came to welcome ``professional'' competitors in every sport except
boxing. By 1986, when the International Olympic Committee expunged the
word ``amateur'' from its bylaws, the modified Games defied every
prediction of disaster. Indeed, most people scarcely noticed the
change. Some of you helped recognize success in the revised Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Kenny Moore, Bowerman and the Men of Oregon. New York: Rodale,
Inc., 2006, p. 349; Joseph M. Turrini, The End of Amateurism in
American Track and Field. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2010,
pp. 74-83, 140-147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This example suggests a good place to start. Wherever possible,
make the athletes true citizens rather than glorified vassals in
college sports. Challenge universities in turn to make wise,
straightforward decisions about the compatibility of commercialized
sports with education.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Branch.
And I want to be very critical of myself because the
general rule around here is that witnesses speak for five or 6
minutes, but I failed to make that clear. And so, we just got--
--
Mr. Branch. It says 5 minutes right here, but I wasn't
watching.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Branch. Sorry.
The Chairman. But I want to just sort of keep it to five or
six or seven minutes. That would be the best. And I thank you
for your testimony. And it was my fault.
Mr. Bradshaw, who is the former Director of Athletics at
Temple University, we welcome you, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. BRADSHAW, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS
(NACDA)
Mr. Bradshaw. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, good afternoon. Your
invitation to me to testify today about promoting the well-
being and academic success of our student-athletes is much
appreciated.
It is an honor for me, this afternoon, to represent the
1,600-plus institutions and 11,000-plus individual members of
NACDA and its athletics administrators who are the
practitioners of our enterprise and representing, in excess, of
500,000 student-athletes across all three NCAA divisions, as
well as the NAIA and junior-community colleges.
NACDA serves as the professional association for those in
the field on intercollegiate athletic administration. It
provides educational opportunities and serves as a vehicle for
networking the exchange of information and advocacy on behalf
of the association.
My career in higher education includes positions as an
assistant baseball coach, head baseball coach, director of
alumni and, before retiring a year ago, 36 years as a Division
I athletic director at three universities. My athletic career
includes 3 years as a student-athlete and one as a walk-on,
followed by 2 years as a professional baseball player in the
Washington Senators organization where two broken ankles
influenced a career change and a Master's Degree. I trust my
ankles are safe with you Washington Senators here today.
These experiences proved valuable to my subsequent 36 years
as a Division I athletic director at La Salle, DePaul, and
Temple Universities, retiring from this wonderful profession
one year ago.
During the five decades of my career, I have seen
significant improvements and the commitment by universities to
the academic, athletic and personal experiences of student-
athletes. From state-of-the-art academic support services,
elite coaching and training, athletic facilities, to the much
improved equipment, safety requirements and emerging NCAA
permissive benefits, our student-athletes have never had it
better. And yet, we know we can do better. We, as educators,
are committed to maximizing and developing the enormous
academic, athletic and personal potential that our talented
student-athletes bring to our universities.
In assessing the well-being of student-athletes, it's
important to examine our university's performances and trends
in the areas of academics, financial security, health safety
and life skills.
Academics. Over the past 20 years, graduation rates, by any
metric, have drastically improved for student-athletes. In
2013, the Graduation Success Rate measure for all student-
athletes in Division I was 82 percent, including 71 percent for
Division I FBS football participants, and 73 percent for men's
basketball student-athletes.
Among the reasons for this dramatic improvement in
graduation rates are: increased NCAA requirements for initial
eligibility and continued eligibility, and universities'
proactive response to the Academic Progress Rate metric
instituted by the NCAA to measure individual teams' classroom
performance each semester.
Health and safety. While universities strive to use best
practices, we can never do too much to ensure the health and
safety of our student-athletes. The prevention and detection of
concussions, for example, particularly in the sport of
football, remain as one of the highest priorities for every
athletic director at every level. Best practices that have
become commonplace include: hiring strength and conditioning
coaches, dieticians, and nutritionists; required seminars for
all student-athletes to discuss drugs and alcohol, assault,
date rape, and gambling, as well as comprehensive regular drug
testing and follow-up.
Financial security. As we all know, the real costs to
attend college have risen above inflation for years, causing
many students to have massive debt upon graduation and proving
too costly for others to even attend the college of their
choice. Currently, Division I student-athletes receive $2.1
billion in athletic scholarships, and this total will continue
to escalate with anticipated NCAA legislation covering real
costs of education, combined with the annual increases in
tuition, room and board, books and fees.
In addition to the real value of an athletic scholarship,
and according to the U.S. Census data, a college graduate, on
the average, earns $1 million more over a lifetime than a non-
graduate. Other financial benefits for student-athletes
include: universities' health insurance; NCAA catastrophic
insurance; multi-year athletic grants; and student assistance
funds available to conference offices.
The vastly improved conditions afforded student-athletes
have resulted in their unprecedented performances in the
classroom, on the playing fields, and in preparation for life.
Few other campus activities or clubs produce such natural
diversity as intercollegiate athletics, bringing together young
men and women from various races, religions, nations, beliefs,
with the common denomination being their academic profiles and
athletic skills.
Less than 1 percent of Division I student-athletes will
ever participate in professional sports, and that professional
career, on average, lasts only a few years. This reality
underscores the value of a college education, an education that
many young men and women could not afford without an athletic
scholarship.
In our profession of intercollegiate athletics, the
student-athletes under our care are the center of our universe,
and the most important people to consider in our
decisionmaking. If we always ask ourselves, before allocating
resources, building facilities, or hiring coaches, is this
decision in the best interest of our student athletes, then I
believe that answer has helped us to arrive at the right
decision.
Any of your questions are most welcome. Thanks, again, for
inviting me to be with you this afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradshaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Bradshaw, Past President of the
National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA)
Chairman Rockefeller, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, good
afternoon. Your invitation to me to testify today about promoting the
well-being and academic success of our student-athletes is much
appreciated.
It is an honor for me, this afternoon, to represent the 1,600-plus
institutions and 11,000-plus individual members of NACDA and its
athletics administrators who are the practitioners of our enterprise
and representing in excess of 500,000 student-athletes across all three
NCAA divisions, as well as the NAIA and junior/community colleges.
NACDA serves as the professional association for those in the field of
intercollegiate athletics administration. It provides educational
opportunities and serves as a vehicle for networking, the exchange of
information and advocacy on behalf of the association.
My 45 years of experience in higher education includes completion
of a bachelor's degree at La Salle University, one year as a walk on
member of the baseball team, followed by three years on an athletic
scholarship. Following graduation, I played two years of professional
baseball in the Washington Senators organization and, following two
broken ankles, I completed my master's degree at Niagara University,
while serving as a resident assistant and volunteer baseball coach. I
continued at Niagara as the head baseball coach for two years, followed
by two years as the director of alumni.
These experiences proved valuable to my subsequent 36 year career
as a Division I Athletics director at La Salle (9), DePaul University
(16) and Temple (11), retiring from this wonderful profession one year
ago.
During the five decades of my career, I have seen significant
improvements in the commitment by universities to the academic,
athletic and personal experiences of student-athletes. From state-of-
the-art academic support services, elite coaching and training,
athletic facilities, to the much improved equipment, safety
requirements, and emerging NCAA permissive benefits--our student-
athletes have never had it better. And yet, we know we can do better.
We, as educators, are committed to maximizing and developing the
enormous academic, athletic and personal potential that our talented
student-athletes bring to our universities.
In assessing the well-being of student-athletes, it's important to
examine our universities performances and trends in the areas of
academics, financial security, health/safety and life skills.
Academics
Over the past 20 years graduation rates, by any metric, have
drastically improved for student-athletes. In 2013, the Graduation
Success Rate (GSR) measure for all student-athletes in Division I was
82 percent, including 71 percent for DI FBS football participants, and
73 percent for men's basketball student-athletes.
Among the reasons for this dramatic and continued upward momentum
are:
The NCAA has increased academic requirements for initial
eligibility and mandated progress toward a specific degree for
a student-athlete to maintain eligibility once enrolled.
The NCAA also initiated the Academic Progress Rate (APR)
metric, measuring progress of teams' academic performance each
semester, with penalties for those teams that do not meet a
minimum threshold.
Universities have responded vigorously to the new standards
by committing resources, additional hires, facilities and
summer school opportunities, to improve academic advising for
student-athletes.
Financial Security
As we all know, the real costs to attend college have risen above
inflation for years, causing many students to have massive debt upon
graduation and proving too costly for others to even attend their
college of choice. Currently, Division I student-athletes receive $2.1
billion in athletic scholarships, and this total will only increase
with anticipated permissive NCAA legislation covering real costs of
education, together with annual increases in tuition, room/board, books
and fees.
In addition to the real dollar value of an athletic
scholarship, and according to the U.S. Census data, a college
graduate, on average, earns $1 million more over a lifetime
than a non-graduate.
The universities ability to cover health insurance, and the
NCAA's catastrophic injury insurance program that picks up
medical costs above $90,000, provide full and unlimited
coverage for student-athletes.
Multi-year athletic grants now can provide security to
student-athletes as they complete their degree requirements at
the institutions they originally enrolled in.
Many student-athletes also take advantage of student
assistance funds, managed by the athletic conferences and
funded by the NCAA, which provides emergency and other
necessities to student-athletes with documented, miscellaneous
needs.
Health and Safety
While universities strive to utilize best practices, hire certified
trainers and strength and conditioning coaches, provide personnel
certified in CPR and first aid at practices and contests, we can never
do too much to insure the health and safety of our student-athletes.
As we hire dieticians and nutritionists to help our student-
athletes with healthy choices, we are continuously challenged to find
solutions to prevent drug and alcohol abuse by student-athletes.
Comprehensive drug testing programs and policies are provided by the
NCAA and each member institution. The prevention and detection of
concussions, particularly in the sport of football, remain as one of
the highest priorities for every athletic director at every level.
At the same time, many of our athletic departments require student-
athletes to attend seminars which address issues of drugs and alcohol,
assault, date rape and gambling.
Life Skills
At the vast majority of Division I institutions, there are required
life skills programs organized for student-athletes, many requested by
the student-athletes themselves. These programs often utilize an
outside expert, and include topics such as:
Career counseling
Etiquette training
Resume preparation/job interviews
Financial planning after graduation
In addition, many of the student-athletes most meaningful and
memorable experiences come from the myriad of community service
projects available to each team during the academic year. And quite
helpful to many of us are the individual questionnaires and exit
interviews we conduct with our graduating seniors. Their candid
evaluations of their student-athlete experience are invaluable toward
best practices in the future.
The vastly improved conditions afforded student-athletes have
resulted in their unprecedented performances in the classroom, on the
playing fields, and in preparation for life.
Few other campus activities or clubs produce such natural diversity
as intercollegiate athletics, bringing together young men and women
from various races, religions, nations and beliefs, with the common
denomination being their academic profiles and athletic skills.
Less than 1 percent of Division I student-athletes will ever
participate in professional sports, and that professional career, on
average, lasts only a few years. This reality underscores the value of
a college education, an education that many young men and women could
not afford without an athletic scholarship.
In our profession of intercollegiate athletics, the student-
athletes under our care are the center of our universe, and the most
important people to consider in our decision making. If we always ask
ourselves, before allocating resources, building facilities, or hiring
coaches--is this decision in the best interest of our student-
athletes?--then I believe that answer has helped us to arrive at the
right decision.
Any of your questions are most welcome.
Thanks again for inviting me to be with you this afternoon.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bradshaw.
Now Dr. Richard Southall, who is a professor at the
University of South Carolina, the Director of the College
Sports Research Institute.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD M. SOUTHALL,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SPORT
AND ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTOR,
COLLEGE SPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Southall. Thank you.
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and
distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity
to speak before you today. My initial draft of my comments was
only 35 minutes. So thank you for giving me the advice.
As Director of the College Sport Research Institute at the
University of South Carolina, my comments today are not off-
the-cuff remarks, but informed by sociological, organizational
and economic theories, as well as empirical studies, and drawn
extensively from NCAA documents. They reflect not only my work,
but also that of numerous colleagues and scholars.
While I am well aware there are distinct socio-demographic
differences within and between NCAA divisions, as well as
between NCAA revenue and Olympic sports, my testimony today
will focus on how, within big-time college sport, NCAA members
have sought to protect their business interests at the expense
of the well-being and academic success of NCAA profit-athletes.
For several decades, the NCAA was aware that as the scale
of both revenue, generation and spending continue to grow,
there is a general sense that big-time athletics is in conflict
with the principle of amateurism and that increased
governmental and public scrutiny is likely if graduation rates
do not improve in underperforming sports.
Consequently, in 2003 the NCAA embarked on a two-phase
organizational rebranding strategy that was part of an
aggressive public and media relations agenda that addressed
critics and provided an alternative to what the NCAA described
as the doggerel of cynics.
First, the NCAA created a term of art, The Collegiate Model
of Athletics, as a better understood definition of amateurism
that isolates the principle to the way in which college
athletes are viewed without imposing its avocational nature on
revenue-producing opportunities. Notably, Division I revenues
have more than doubled since 2003.
Tellingly, internal NCAA documents reveal protecting the
collegiate model is nearly, by definition, the primary focus of
the office of the NCAA president.
Concurrently, in an effort to maintain the perception of a
clear line of demarcation between college and professional
sport, and offer support for the effectiveness of its new
Academic Progress Program, the NCAA developed the Academic
Progress Rate, or APR, and Graduation Success Rate, or GSR.
Since 2003, the NCAA has consistently sought to utilize these
rates as proof that big-time college sport has one clear focus:
Education.
However, several items are noteworthy. One, neither the
Federal Graduation Rate, FGR, mandated by Congress, nor the
NCAA's GSR, is perfect or inherently a more accurate metric.
They utilize different sampling and statistical analyses to
examine different cohorts. In short, they are different
graduation rates.
Two, the GSR consistently returns a rate 12 to 25 percent
higher than the FGR. As far back as 1991, the NCAA knew that
removing eligible dropouts, in other words transfers or
athletes who leave school in good academic standing, from the
GSR cohort would result in a markedly higher success rate.
Three, since there is no comparable national-level GSR for
the general student body to report GSR and FGR data
simultaneously in press releases or data-set tables, invites
inappropriate comparisons and fosters confusion among the
general public.
While the NCAA National Office has sought to protect its
collegiate model, academic support staffs labor within a system
that too often depends on an amorphous special-talented
admission process, focuses on maintaining eligibility and
results in athletes often clustering or being steered to majors
conducive to their practice and competition; or, in other
words, work schedules. Tellingly, several authorities within
the NCAA and university governance structures recognize
clustering and scheduling of easy courses as problems.
In addition, contrary to the NCAA's public posturing that
they are just normal students, profit-athletes tend, in
important respects, to be physically, culturally and socially
isolated from the campus community. They live in a tightly
controlled parallel universe indicative of Goffman's total
institutions.
Through the steady drumbeat of sophisticated and subtle
institutional propaganda, the NCAA has sought spontaneous
consent to a mythology that big-time college sport a priori
enhances the educational experience of ``student-athletes.''
Propaganda is effective because it exploits people's
reluctance to intellectually engage with any oppositional
alternative views. Since 2003, while the NCAA has successfully
embedded its Collegiate Model of Athletics including the
Graduation Success Rate, into the public's consciousness, there
has been little progress in ensuring profit-athletes have equal
access to educational opportunities afforded other students.
In conclusion, there is clear evidence the NCAA's
Collegiate Model of Athletics not only systematically inhibits
access to a world-class university education, but also exploits
profit-athletes by denying them basic bargaining rights, due
process and standard forms of compensation.
I want to thank the Committee Members for the opportunity
to visit with you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Southall follows:]
[In addition to the prepared statement that follows, Dr. Southall
submitted three articles to the Committee:]
Richard Southall and Ellen J. Staurowsky, ``Cheering on the
Collegiate Model: Creating, Disseminating, and Imbedding the
NCAA's Redefinition Amateurism,'' in Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, XX(X)1-27, 2013 Sage Publications. http://
jss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/21/0193723513498606
Richard M. Southall and Jonathan D. Weiler, ``NCAA Division-I
Athletic Departments: 21st Century Athletic Company Towns,'' in
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2014, 7, 161-
186, 2014 College Sport Research Institute. http://csri-
jiia.org/documents/publications/research_articles/2014/JIIA
_2014_7_08_161_186_21st%20Century.pdf
Richard M. Southall, Mark S. Nagel, John M. Amis, and Crystal
Southall, ``A Method to March Madness? Institutional Logics and
the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I
Men's Basketball Tournament,'' in Journal of Sport Management,
2008, 22, 677-700, 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc. http://
www.academia.edu/740241/Southall_R._M._Nagel_M._S._Amis_J._and
_Southall_C._2008_._A_method_to_March_Madness_Institutional_
logics_and_the_2006_National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association_Div
ision
_I_men_s_basketball_tournament._Journal_of_Sport_Management_22
_6_677-700
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard M. Southall, Associate Professor,
Department of Sport and Entertainment Management and Director,
College Sport Research Institute, University of South Carolina
Introduction
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and distinguished
committee members, thank you for the opportunity to share extended
written remarks with the Committee. My remarks draw upon previously
published peer-reviewed articles, and utilize well-established
sociological, organizational, and economic theories, as well as
empirical studies. In addition, I refer extensively to National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) documents and the work of
numerous colleagues who--over several decades--have researched college
sport.
Before I begin, I want to recognize two individuals whose work laid
the groundwork for much of today's college-sport research: George Sage
and Stanley Eitzen. In addition, throughout my academic career I have
had the distinct honor of working with and learning from great
colleagues, including: John Amis, Jamal Brooks, Brendan Dwyer, Woody
Eckard, Gerry Gurney, Peter Han, Louis Harrison, Billy Hawkins, Ramogi
Huma, Matthew Kelley, Che Mock, Leonard Moore, Mark Nagel, Evelyn
Oregon, Michael Oriard, Kadie Otto, Amanda Paule-Kobe, Fritz Polite,
Daniel Rascher, David Ridpath, Allen Sack, Gary Sailes, Linda Sharp,
John Singer, Earl Smith, Crystal Southall, Deborah Southall, Ellen
Staurowsky, Robert Turner, Pam Vaccaro, Sonny Vaccaro, Jonathan Weiler
and Doug Wells.
In addition, while I recognize there are distinct socio-demographic
differences within and between NCAA divisions, as well as between NCAA
revenue and Olympic sports, my extended written remarks focus on what
is euphemistically called ``big-time'' college sport. Specifically, my
remarks (and the attached peer-reviewed research articles) trace the
manner in which NCAA D-I member universities and the NCAA national
office have sought to protect their business interests at the expense
of the well-being and academic success of NCAA profit-athletes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Profit-athletes are NCAA college athletes whose estimated
market value exceeds the value of NCAA-approved compensation (i.e.,
NCAA Bylaw 15.02.5 ``A full grant-in-aid is financial aid that consists
of tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related
books.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational Rebranding
For several decades, the NCAA has been aware that ``[a]s the scale
of both revenue generation and spending [continue to grow], there is a
general sense that `big-time' athletics is in conflict with the
principle of amateurism'' (NCAA, 2010a, para. 3) and that increased
governmental and public scrutiny is likely ``. . . if graduation rates
do not improve in underperforming sports'' (NCAA, 2010c, para. 4).
Consequently, to deflect criticism of the business of big-time
college sport, in 2003 the NCAA embarked on a two-part organizational
rebranding strategy that was part of ``. . . an aggressive public and
media relations agenda that addresses critics . . . [and] provide[s] an
alternative to [what the NCAA describes as] the doggerel of cynics''
(NCAA, 2010c, para. 4).
First, the NCAA created ``. . . a term of art [The Collegiate Model
of Athletics] [as] . . . a better understood definition of amateurism
that isolates the principle to the way in which [college] athletes are
viewed without imposing its avocational nature on revenue-producing
opportunities'' (NCAA, 2010a, para. 3; NCAA, 2010d, para. 1). NCAA
documents reveal the NCAA national office staff believes ``[p]rotecting
the collegiate model is nearly by definition the primary focus of the
office of the NCAA president'' (NCAA, 2010c, para 3).
Second, in an effort to maintain the perception of a clear line of
demarcation between its collegiate model and professional sport, and
offer support for the effectiveness of its new Academic Progress
Program (APP), the NCAA developed two metrics: the Academic Progress
Rate (APR) & Graduation Success Rate (GSR). Over the past decade the
NCAA has consistently sought to position its GSR as the best or most
accurate graduation rate and utilize GSR and APR scores as evidence
big-time college sport has one clear focus--education.
However, specific to this NCAA graduation-rate strategy several
items are noteworthy:
1. Neither the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR), mandated by Congress,
nor the NCAA's GSR is perfect or inherently a more accurate
metric; they utilize different sampling and statistical
analyses to examine different cohorts. In short, they are
different graduation rates.
2. The GSR consistently returns a ``success'' rate 12-25 percent
higher than the FGR. As far back as 1991 (NCAA, 1991), the NCAA
knew that by removing \1/4\ to \1/3\ of what it referred to as
``eligible dropouts'' from the sample would result in a
markedly higher ``success'' rate.
3. A comparison of published FGRs of NCAA athletes and the general
student population includes a significant number of part-time
students at many schools. This is problematic because NCAA
athletes must be ``full-time.'' Consequently, it makes sense to
compare full-time college athletes with other full-time
students. Without adjusting for the possible downward ``part-
timer bias'' in the student-body rate, any comparison may be
distorted--or somewhat skewed. Because part-time students take
longer to graduate, reported general student-body FGRs may be
significantly reduced, making the relative rate of college
athletes at many schools and conferences appear more favorable.
4. Finally, since there is no comparable national-level GSR for the
general student body, GSR and FGR data should NOT be reported
simultaneously. To do so in press releases or dataset tables
invites inappropriate comparisons and fosters confusion.
While the NCAA national office has sought to protect the
organization's collegiate model by focusing on rebranding strategies,
athletic department academic support staffs have been caught between a
proverbial rock and a hard place. As advisors will candidly admit
``off-the-record,'' the collegiate model depends on an amorphous
``special-talent'' admissions process, and results in a focus on
maintaining eligibility and athletes often clustering or ``being
steered'' to majors conducive to their work (i.e., practice and
competition) schedules (Gurney & Southall, 2012, 2013; Southall, 2012).
Several ``authorities'' within NCAA and university governance
structures have identified clustering and scheduling of easy courses as
problems within college sport. The 2013 NCAA Faculty Athletics
Representative (FAR) Study (pg. 26) reports that 66 percent of DI FAR's
identified ``scheduling considerations'' and 59 percent identified
``major provides an easy academic path'' as ``Reasons for Major
Clustering.'' In addition, a 2012 report from the Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges specifically noted that
relative to intercollegiate athletics, governing boards have a
responsibility to monitor clustering. These reports confirm that NCAA
staff, faculty members, university administrators, and governing board
trustees are all aware of clustering. While these issues may be
publicly downplayed, or data aggregated to present a more palatable
image of the collegiate model, disparities in graduation rates between
profit-athletes and the general student body, as well as large-scale
clustering of such athletes are examples of systemic impediments to
profit-athletes' equal-educational access.
Total Institutions
In addition, profit-athletes, tend--in important respects--to be
physically, culturally, and socially isolated from the campus
community. They live in what is, in many ways, a tightly controlled
parallel universe indicative of Goffman's (1961) total institutions
(Southall & Weiler, 2014).
In practice, big-time college-sport programs fall somewhere on a
spectrum between two extremes: educational utopia and exploitative
sweatshop (Green, 2010). Intercollegiate athletics potentially provides
a chance for athletes to obtain a college degree while competing in
their chosen sport. However, profit-athletes who are disproportionately
engulfed in their athletic role (Adler & Adler, 1991), foreclosing
themselves from other identities (Oregon, 2010), often view college
sport mostly as an opportunity to dramatically improve their families'
socio-economic status (Makuhari Media Production, 2013). In order to
realize this economic gain players often travel to out-of-state
colleges and universities, and barter their athletic abilities in
exchange for an athletic grant-in-aid (Hawkins, 2010). Similar to labor
migrations in which rural Southern workers headed North for job
opportunities, three Southern states (Texas [1], Florida [3], and
Georgia [5]) are among the top five Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)
football-player producing states (Baker, 2010). In addition, when
analyzed on a per-capita basis, six Southern states are among the
country's top-ten (Louisiana [2], Florida [3], Alabama [4], Georgia
[5], Texas [6], Mississippi [8]) (Baker, 2010). As a result, many
profit-athletes' relationships with NCAA Division-I universities and
colleges are akin to the existences of oscillating migrant laborers,
who rotate between their residence and work locations (Hawkins, 2010;
Southall & Weiler, 2014).
Within this environment, the behavior of current NCAA D-I athletes'
(especially profit-athletes) is monitored and scrutinized by athletic
department staff and coaches much more so than that of regular
students. For example, athletes' use of social media, a right every
other student possesses, is closely tracked and restricted. In an NCAA
news release Hosick (2013) noted, ``Many member institutions feel
pressure to monitor their student-athletes' online activity to
demonstrate effective oversight that will stand up to scrutiny if ever
faced with allegations of significant violations of NCAA rules'' (para.
2). While the methods of monitoring differ, most compliance directors
agree that significant monitoring and regulation of content posted is
justified. As one Associate Athletic Director for [NCAA] Compliance
said, ``We do monitor it, and we tell them we're doing it. . . . We're
not going to bury our heads in the sand'' (Hosick, 2013, para. 18).
In addition to monitoring and regulating athletes' social media
activities, some athletic departments specifically track their profit-
athletes' spending habits. In the fall of 2012 The Ohio State
University (OSU) began such targeted scrutiny (Bishop, 2012). Ohio
State justified the practice as a reasonable response to a recent
scandal in which football players exchanged memorabilia for free
tattoos, a violation of NCAA rules against impermissible benefits to
athletes (Bishop, 2012). OSU's athletic director, Gene Smith, called
this surveillance tactic a ``common sense'' policy, since there are so
many different ways to run afoul of NCAA rules (Bishop, 2012).
Consistent with a post-racial perspective,\2\ Smith said such
scrutiny was simply ``educational,'' since many profit-athletes come
from poor backgrounds (where they had never before, for example, opened
a checking account) (Bishop, 2012). Consistent with Goffman's (1961)
total institutions and similar to the culture of Southern textile
towns, big-time intercollegiate athletic administrators see nothing
abnormal about exerting extreme paternalistic claims on the lives of
profit-athletes that echo the social experience of migrant company-town
workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Data from the 2009-2010 NCAA Student-Athlete Race/Ethnicity
Report (NCAA, 2010c), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), and School District Demographics System (SDDS) provide
evidence the majority of NCAA FBS football and men's basketball players
(including those with the greatest market value) are African-American
males, who come disproportionately from lower-to-middle class socio-
economic backgrounds (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in fundamental ways the life of a football player at the
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa in 2013 is not equivalent to the
actual conditions of life on a plantation, nor as perilous as being a
West Virginia coal miner, it should be noted college football players
(by far the most lucrative college sport) do face endemic health
problems. According to Hootman, Dick, and Agel (2007), college football
players have the highest injury rates for both practices (9.6 injuries
per 1,000 A-Es) and games (35.9 injuries per 1,000 A-Es) among all
college athletes. In recent years research on head trauma and its
potential long-term negative health effects has cast a pall over the
sport.
Similar to subsurface coal mining, which frequently led to ``black
lung'' disease among miners, and ``brown lung'' disease that afflicted
textile workers, college football (college sport's main economic
engine) is increasingly seen as a dangerous ``occupation,'' with
``recent published reports of neuropathologically confirmed chronic
traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) \3\ in retired professional football
players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain
trauma'' (Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy [CSTE],
n.d., para. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the Center for the Study of Traumatic
Encephalopathy (CSTE), an independent academic research center located
at Boston University School of Medicine, CTE ``. . . is progressive
degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a
history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions
as well as asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head'' (CSTE, n.d.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, while the extensive health services provided to FBS
football players may initially appear to be generous and altruistic,
they can also be viewed as capital expenditures to protect
universities' investments in the labor-force that drives the collegiate
model (Huma & Staurowsky, 2012). If an important profit-athlete is
injured and unable to compete, his athletic value to the athletic
department is significantly diminished. Therefore, it is in an athletic
department's best interest to insure revenue-generating profit-athletes
can be rehabilitated and return to competition as soon as possible.
Protecting the Collegiate Model
Through sophisticated and subtle sociological propaganda (Jowett &
O'Donnell, 1992; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013) the NCAA national office
has achieved spontaneous consent to its collegiate model. For some,
NCAA hegemony is complete (i.e., coaches, conference commissioners, and
administrators, corporate partners), while others exist in a state of
``moral and political passivity'' (Gramsci, 1971, p. 333). Some (i.e.,
presidents, FAR's, and many loss-athletes \4\) view profit-athletes as
valued entertainment commodities. Almost all, however, consistently
proclaim the educational mission of college sport while protecting the
collegiate Model of Athletics--a massive revenue-producing enterprise.
To protect this model, it is crucial that college-sport stakeholders
convince the general public that revenue-generating athletes are
something other than ordinary employees entitled to standard forms of
compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the current NCAA D-I Collegiate Model of Athletics, almost
all ``Olympic sport'' college athletes are ``loss-athletes''--athletes
whose market value is less than the value of NCAA-approved
compensation. In addition, not all ``revenue-sport athletes'' are
necessarily profit-athletes, since reserve or ``bench'' players may
have a diminished market value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Kuhn (1991) noted, propaganda is effective because it exploits
people's reluctance to intellectually engage with any oppositional or
alternative views. Since 2003, while the NCAA has successfully imbedded
its Collegiate Model of Athletics into the public's consciousness,
there has been little progress in ensuring profit athletes have equal
access to educational opportunities afforded other students. Consistent
with Black's (2001) analysis, the national office's propaganda has
imperceptibly influenced marginalized NCAA institutional actors to
adopt a mental and emotional state that fluctuates between resistance
and conformity, disagreement and apathy. In addition, by positioning
the NCAA president as a philosopher king, who speaks with almost
unquestioned moral authority, the national office maintains a semblance
of order, continuity and stability within college sport.
The NCAA's consistent warning that college sport ``as we know it''
is under attack and that it must not ``. . . be allowed to be drawn to
the professional model like a moth drawn to a flame'' (Brand, 2004, p.
7) is predicated on the axiom that allowing athletes independent
representation or access to the college-sport market would unhinge
college sport's ties to alumni and fans, and result in college sport's
destruction. This assertion is not supported by empirical evidence. No
publicly available research supports the notion that if profit-athletes
participated in the multi-billion dollar college-sport enterprise,
consumers would be so outraged they would cease attending games.
Interestingly, the term ``collegiate-model'' was unveiled while the
NCAA was engaged in ongoing conversations with a primary media partner
(ESPN) about a new venture that would deliver college-sport content to
viewers seven days a week, 24 hours a day. In September of 2004, ESPNU
executive John Wildhack said the new cable channel (ESPNU) would give
``. . . college-sports fans more of what they want. There is not a
better opportunity for ESPN than this network, considering the roots of
our company that go back to college basketball and football and our
relationship with the NCAA'' (Reynolds, 2004, para. 16). This
additional distribution channel was launched during the height of March
Madness 2005. Ironically, one of ESPNU's first broadcasts--under the
umbrella of ESPN's Emmy-award winning enterprise journalism franchise--
Outside the Lines--was the ``ESPNU Town Hall: Should College Athletes
Be Paid?'' Paradoxically, the NCAA's hegemony was so complete it could
even generate revenue off discussions about issues plaguing college
sports resulting from its collaboration with media partners.
While systematic and sustained propaganda need not be detrimental
to society, its use to silence open critical discourse is problematic,
especially when applied in educational settings. Cautioning that
propaganda had the potential to discourage open-mindedness, a condition
antithetical to education, Martin (1929) wrote, ``Education aims at
independence of judgment. Propaganda offers ready-made opinions for the
unthinking herd'' (as quoted in Black, 2001, p. 122). Herman and
Chomsky (2002) likened the use of propaganda in a democracy to that of
violence in a dictatorship, where mechanisms for dissent are
effectively stifled either through benign messaging or outright force.
The NCAA national office's calculated efforts to obtain consent to
``. . . a better understood definition of amateurism that isolates the
principle to the way in which student-athletes are viewed without
imposing its avocational nature on revenue-producing opportunities''
(NCAA, 2010a, para. 3) through consistent messaging and subtle
persuasion--rather than member engagement--reveals the extent to which
an effective sociological propaganda campaign can shape public
discourse.
This strategy is consistent with the NCAA's federated governance
structure, which isolates decision-making among a small group of major
conferences, and results in acquiescence from the vast majority of the
``association'' and ``membership'' (Staurowsky, 2004). While State of
the Association addresses serve as blueprints for where the NCAA is
headed, the vast majority of individuals working in college sport
rarely read them, and only a few institutional decision makers actually
hear the addresses. The subtle nuances in language and preferred
terminology encoded in these speeches have been represented and
retransmitted through NCAA communiques that invite agreement rather
than critical consideration. As a consequence, many groups acquiesce to
a Collegiate Model of which they have little, if any, working
knowledge. Some within the intercollegiate athletic community genuinely
do not apprehend what is at stake in embracing a model that codifies
the monetization and revenue maximization of the college-sport
enterprise at every level, something once reserved only for Division I.
As a result, within today's college-sport landscape there are many
who fail to comprehend the NCAA's institutional hegemony, others who
unquestionably view their mission as maintaining and reinforcing a
status quo that conforms to taken-for-granted institutional facts, and
a dominant group that actively creates and wields the Collegiate Model
as a linguistic and philosophical ``armor of coercion'' (Adamson, 1980)
to deliberately form, control, and alter attitudes.
Conclusion
Within this discursive setting, college athletes' choices are
limited (Huma & Staurowsky, 2011). Not only do they often find it
difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualize an alternative college-
sport institutional logic (Southall, Nagel, Amis, & Southall, 2008),
but since the collegiate model marks the boundaries of any discourse (a
discourse college athletes inherit but effectively play no role in
shaping) it is necessarily difficult or sometimes impossible for
college athletes to determine the source of their alienation within the
collegiate model, let alone conceptualize ways to remedy their
situation. In addition, for marginalized college athletes, who--most
notably--in NCAA Division-I have ``no voice and no vote'' the threat of
officially sanctioned force (in the form of a loss in eligibility)
remains an implicit control mechanism. As a result, college athletes--
especially those revenue-sport athletes who migrate to Predominately
White Institutions (PWIs) \5\ from geographically and culturally
distant settings (Hawkins, 2010; Hawkins & Southall, 2012)--adopt a
mental and emotional state that fluctuates between resistance and
conformity, disagreement and apathy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) (Hawkins,
2010) refers to the set of U.S. universities that are NCAA Division-I
members competing in NCAA FBS football and/or NCAA D-I men's
basketball.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere is the NCAA national office's overriding imposition of its
authority and jurisdiction over subordinates (specifically athletes),
more clearly evidenced than in its manipulation of ``consent'' through
the use of ``eligibility'' documents (i.e., Form 12-3a--Student-Athlete
Statement--NCAA Division I) to obtain the right to monetize (e.g.,
generate billions of dollars in revenue) profit-athletes' names, images
and likenesses (NILs) (Follman, 2014; Schroeder, 2014). A recent
lawsuit (O'Bannon v. NCAA)--with its discovery, testimonies, and
depositions--offered a glimpse of the NCAA's faux commitment to
amateurism.
The NCAA has manufactured consent to the economic interests of its
Collegiate Model of Athletics through simultaneously threatening
athletes with loss of eligibility and fostering uniform agreement among
member institutions and representative leadership who consent to these
practices with little opposition (Hinnen, 2013; Singer, 2013).
Achieving spontaneous consent among NCAA members allows for the
proliferation of profit-seeking tendencies to move forward with little
actual resistance. In concert with the national office, the NCAA' most
powerful football playing institutions have carved out a new playoff
system under the name of the College Football Playoff that is expected
to yield a $500 million return on four end of season games leading to a
``national'' champion (Schroeder, 2012). The NCAA national office, in
turn, realizes nearly $800 million per year as a result of its
multibillion-dollar contract promoting March Madness and men's
basketball
Through the ``steady drumbeat'' (NCAA, 2010d, para. 3) of
sophisticated and subtle sociological propaganda techniques (Jowett &
O'Donnell, 1992; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013), the NCAA has sought
spontaneous consent to the NCAA mythology that big-time college sport
is a moral endeavor that enhances ``. . . the educational experience of
[quote-unquote] student-athletes'' (Renfro, 2012, p. 33).
However, there is clear evidence the NCAA's Division I Collegiate
Model of Athletics systematically exploits profit-athletes' by denying
them access to the college-sport enterprise, due process, basic
bargaining rights, standard forms of compensation, as well as equal
access to a world-class university education.
References
Adamson, W. L. (1980). Hegemony and revolution: A study of Antonio
Gramsci's political and cultural theory. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards:
College athletes and role engulfment. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
(2012). Trust, accountability, and integrity: Board responsibilities
for intercollegiate athletics. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Baker, M. (2010, January 28). Star search: Why the South is king.
Tulsa World. Retrieved from http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/star-
search-why-the-south-is-king/article_ac634bf7-f107-578a-93ca-
24acb1e075da.html
Bishop, G. (2012, December 17). Ohio State's monitoring of
athletes' expenditures raises concerns. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/sports/ncaafootball/ohio-states-
monitoring-of-athletes-spending-raises-privacy-
concerns.html?_r=0&gwh=2BFB5E07FA943C301760385202357E37
Black, J. (2001). Semantics and ethics of propaganda. Journal of
Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 16, 121-137.
Brand, M. (2004, January 19). Brand address: Fortify bond between
academics, athletics. NCAA News. Retrieved from http://fs.ncaa.org/
Docs/NCAANewsArchive/
2004/Associationwide/
brand%2baddress%2b%bfortify%2bbond%2bbetween%2bacade
mics%2bathletics%2b-%2b1-19-04.html
Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy. (n.d.). What is
CTE? Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/cste/about/what-is-cte/
Follman, J. (2014, April 18). It's time for the NCAA to let
athletes monetize their image. SB Nation. Retrieved from http://
www.pacifictakes.com/2014/4/18/5626238/its-time-for-the-ncaa-to-let-
athletes-monetize-their-image
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Doubleday.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare
& G. N. Smith, Eds.). New York, NY: International Publishers.
Gurney, G. S., & Southall, R. M. (2012, August 9). College sport's
bait and witch. ESPN College Sports. Available at http://espn.go.com/
college-sports/story/_/id/8248046/college-sports-programs-find-
multitude-ways-game-ncaa-apr
Gurney, G., & Southall, R. M. (2013, February 14). NCAA reform gone
wrong. insidehighered.com. Available at http://www.insidehighered.com/
views/2013/02/14/ncaa-academic-reform-has-hurt-higher-eds-integrity-
essay
Hawkins, B. J. (2010). The new plantation: black athletes, college
sports, and predominantly white NCAA institutions. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hawkins, B. & Southall, R. M. (2012, November). The plantation,
oscillating migrant labor camp, brothel, or company town? An
examination of the efficacy of big-time college sport exploitation.
Paper presented at the thirty-third annual North American Society for
the Sociology of Sport conference, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.nasss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-NASSS-Final-
program-and-abstracts.pdf
Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent. The
political economy of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Hinnen, J. (2013, April 26). E-mails released in O'Bannon suit show
``real concern'' at NCAA. CBS College Sports. Retrieved from http://
www.cbssports.com/college
football/blog/eyeon-college-football/22144772/e-mails-released-in-
obannon-suit-show
-real-concern-atncaa
Hockensmith, D. (2014, April 21). NCAA president Mark Emmert makes
little progress in the case against paying college athletes: watch
video. Retrieved from http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/
ncaa_president_mark_emme
rt_mak.html
Hootman, J. M., Dick, R., & Agel, J. (2007). Epidemiology of
collegiate injuries for 15 sports: Summary and recommendations for
injury prevention initiatives. Journal of Athletic Training, 42(2),
311.
Hosick, M. B. (2013, February). Social networks pose monitoring
challenges for NCAA schools. Resources: Latest News, NCAA.org.
Retrieved from http://www
.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2013/
February
/social+networks+pose+monitoring+challenge+for+ncaa+schools
Huma, R., & Staurowsky, E. J. (2012). The $6 billion heist: Robbing
college athletes under the guise of amateurism. A report
collaboratively produced by the National College Players Association
and Drexel University Sport Management. Available online at http://
www.ncpanow.org
Jowett, G. S. & O'Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Makuhari Media Production (Producer). (2013). Schooled: The price
of college sport. (DVD). Available from https://itunes.apple.com/movie/
schooled-price-college-sports/id733105020?v0=9988&ign-mpt=uo%3D1
Martin, E. D. (1929). Our invisible masters. Forum, 81, 142-145.
Miranda, M. A., & Paskus, T. S. (2013, February). Roles,
responsibilities and perspectives of NCAA faculty athletics
representatives. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from National Collegiate
Athletics Association website: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/
public/ncaa/pdfs/2013/far+survey
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (1991, June). NCAA
academic performance study: Report 91-01--A description of college
graduation rates for 1984 and 1985 freshman student-athletes. Overland
Park, KS: Author.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010a). Amateurism. NCAA
president's briefing documents. \6\ Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved
from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/2010/Emmert/Part5/amateurism.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ After a link to the NCAA's President's Briefing Documents was
published March 30, 2012 in The New York Times (Nocera, 2012), the NCAA
deactivated all associated URLs. Currently, a ``404 Not Found'' message
appears. The NCAA does not deny the existence of the documents.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010b). Branding and
communications major NCAA challenges from group perspective. NCAA
president briefing documents. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/2010/Emmert/Part3/BC/BC1.html
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010c). Major NCAA
challenges from group perspective. NCAA president briefing documents.
Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/
newmedia/2010/Emmert/Part3/AMA/ama5
.html
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010d). Protecting the
collegiate model. NCAA president briefing documents. Indianapolis, IN:
Author. Retrieved from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/2010/Emmert/
Part5/protecting.html
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2014, May 14). Academic
Progress Rate Q&A. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/
media-center/news/academic-progress-rate-qa
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Graduation
success rate. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/
research/graduation-success-rate
Nocera, J. (2012, March 30). Orwell and March Madness. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/nocera-
orwell-and-march-madness.html
Oregon, E. M. (2010). An examination of athletic identity and
identity foreclosure among male collegiate student-athletes (Master's
thesis, The University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill).
Renfro, W. (2012, September 6). Amateurism, professionalism,
commercial activity and intercollegiate athletics: Ambivalence about
principles. Proceedings of the Santa Clara Sports Law Symposium, Santa
Clara, CA (pp. 32-45).
Reynolds, M. (2004, September 7). ESPN to launch ESPNU, ESPN2 HD.
Multichannel News. Retrieved from http://www.multichannel.com/content/
espn-launch-espnu-espn2-hd
Schroeder, G. (2012, December 11). College football playoff revenue
distribution set. USA Today Sports. Retrieved from http://
www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-
bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-pay
outs/1762709/
Schroeder, G. (2014, June 20). O'Bannon trial: In defending NCAA,
Jim Delany also helps plaintiffs. USA Today Sports. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/20/ed-obannon-vs-
ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit-day-10-mark
-emmert-jim-delany/11063831/
Singer, M. (2013, May 23). Report: EA Sports used Tim Tebow's name
in 2010 video game. CBS Sports. Retrieved from http://
www.cbssports.com/general/blog/eye-on-sports/22290630/report-ea-sports-
used-tim-tebows-name-in-2010-video-game
Southall, R. M. (2012, November). Taking the measure of graduation
rates in big-time college sport. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 92(3).
Southall, R. M., & Staurowsky, E. J. (2013). Cheering on the
collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA's
redefinition of amateurism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(4),
403-429.
Southall, R. M., & Weiler, J. D. (2014). NCAA D-I athletic
departments: 21st century company towns. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 161-186.
Staurowsky, E. J. (2004). Piercing the veil of amateurism:
Commercialisation, corruption, and U.S. college sport. In T. Slack
(Ed.), The commercialisation of sport (pp. 143-163). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Annotated Bibliography
This bibliography provides additional material (much of it peer-
reviewed) that will be useful in examining college athletes' well being
and academic success. Where available, hyperlinks to Internet locations
of documents have been provided.
NCAA Support of Independent College Sport Research
The Lost NCAA Conference http://sports-law.blogspot.com/
2007/04/lost-ncaa-conference.html
Scholarly Colloquium attracts research focus http://
fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAA
NewArchive/2007/Association-wide/
scholarly+colloquium+attracts+research+fo
cus+-+10-08-07+-+ncaa+news.html
NCAA's Tolerance for Dissenting Views at Its Academic Forum
Appears in Doubt http://onnidan1.com/forum/
index.php?topic=70639.0;wap2
NCAA Withdraws Financial Support for Its Scholarly
Colloquium http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/ncaa-withdraws-
financial-support-for-its-scholarly-colloq
uium/32309
Lack of Support for Scholarly Colloquium a loss for NCAA
http://comm
.psu.edu/news/article/lack-of-support-for-scholarly-colloquium-
a-loss-for-ncaa
Clustering in College Sport
Benson, K. F. (2000, Mar.-Apr.). Constructing academic
inadequacy: African American athletes' stories of schooling.
The Journal of Higher Education: Special Issue: The Shape of
Diversity, 71(2), 223-246. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2649249
Calhoun, V. A. (2012). Division I student athletes and the
experience of academic clustering. Education Doctoral Theses.
Paper 37. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20002761
Dent, M., Sanserino, M., & Werner, S. (2014, June 1). Do
colleges drop the ball with student-athletes? Academicians
worry that they are steered toward less-rigorous majors.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette retrieved from http://www.post-ga
zette.com/sports/college/2014/06/01/Do-colleges-drop-the-ball-
with-student-ath
letes/stories/201406010120
Fountain, J. J., & Finley, P. S. (2009). Academic majors of
upperclassmen football players in the Atlantic Coast
Conference: An analysis of academic clustering comparing white
and minority players. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics, 2(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.csri-jiia.org/
documents/
publications/research_articles/2009/
JIIA_2009_1_Fountain_Publish%20
Copy_1.0.pdf
Fountain, J. J., & Finley, P. S. (2011). Academic
clustering: A longitudinal analysis of a Division I football
program. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 4, 24-
41. Retrieved from http://csri-jiia.org/documents/puclications/
research_articles/2011/
JIIA_2011_4_2_24_41_Academic_Clustering.pdf
McCormick, R. A., & McCormick, A. C. (2006). Myth of the
student-athlete: The college athlete as employee. Wash. L.
Rev., 81, 71. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.msu.eduh
Otto, K. (2012). Demonstrating the importance of accuracy in
reporting results of academic clustering. Journal for the Study
of Sports and Athletes in Education, 6(3), 293-310.
Paule-Koba, A. (in press). Gaining equality in all the wrong
areas: An analysis of academic clustering in women's NCAA
Division I basketball.
Sanders, J. P., & Hildenbrand, K. (2010). Major concerns? A
longitudinal analysis of student-athletes' academic majors in
comparative perspective. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport,
3(2).
Steeg, J., Upton, J., Bohn, P., & Berkowitz, S. (2008).
College athletes' studies guided toward `major in eligibility'.
USA Today, 19. Retrieved from http://
www.trainingcampforlife.com/nashville/pdfs/
usa_article_ineligibility.pdf
Graduation Rates
Beamon, K. K. (2008). '' Used Goods'': Former African
American College Student-Athletes' Perception of Exploitation
by Division I Universities. The Journal of Negro Education,
352-364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/
10.2307/
25608704?uid=3739776&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=2110392627
5891
Eckard, E. W. (2010). NCAA athlete graduation rates: Less
than meets the eye. Journal of Sport Management, 24(1), 45-58.
Ferris, E., Finster, M., & McDonald, D. (2004). Academic fit
of student-athletes: An analysis of NCAA division IA graduation
rates. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 555-575. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023
/B:RIHE.0000040263.39209.84
LaForge, L., & Hodge, J. (2011). NCAA academic performance
metrics: Implications for institutional policy and practice.
The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 217-235. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=sum
mary&url=/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v082/
82.2.laforge.html
Le Crom, C. L., Warren, B. J., Clark, H. T., Marolla, J., &
Gerber, P. (2009). Factors contributing to student-athlete
retention. Journal of issues in Intercollegiate Athletics,
2(1), 14-24. Retrieved from http://csri-jiia.org/documents/
puclications/research_articles/2009/
JIIA_2009_2_Crom_Publish%20Copy
_1.0.pdf
Rishe, P. J. (2003). A reexamination of how athletic success
impacts graduation rates: Comparing student-athletes to all
other undergraduates. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 62(2), 407-427.
Southall, R. M. (2012). Taking the measure of graduation
rates in big-time college sports. In Phi Kappa Phi Forum,
92(3), pp. 18-20.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Randall, M.
H. (2014). Athletic success and NCAA profit-athletes' adjusted
graduation gaps. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Adjusted Graduation Gap (AGG) Research Reports--Available from http://
csri-sc.org/research/
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S. (2014, May 13).
2014 adjusted graduation gap report: NCAA D-I baseball and
softball. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI). Columbia,
SC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., Keith, E., &
Blake, C. (2014, March 12). 2013-14 adjusted graduation gap
report: NCAA Division-I basketball. College Sport Research
Institute (CSRI). Columbia, SC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., Blake, C. &
Keith, E. (2013, September 25). 2013 adjusted graduation gap
report: NCAA Division-I football. College Sport Research
Institute (CSRI). Columbia, SC.
Southall, R. M., Nagel, M. S., Exton, C. S., Eckard, E. W.,
& Blake, C. (2013, April 17). 2013 adjusted graduation gap:
NCAA Division-I baseball and softball. College Sport Research
Institute (CSRI). Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Nagel, M. S., Exton, C. S., Eckard, E. W.,
& Blake, C. (2013, January 10). Adjusted graduation gap: NCAA
Division-I men's and women's basketball. College Sport Research
Institute (CSRI). Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Hale, J. M.
(2012, September 25). 2012 adjusted graduation gap report: NCAA
Division-I football. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI).
Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S. (2012, April
19). 2012 adjusted graduation gap report: NCAA Division-I
baseball and softball. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI).
Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Huffman, L.
(2011, December 7). Adjusted graduation gap: NCAA Division-I
men's and women's basketball. College Sport Research Institute
(CSRI). Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Huffman, L.
(2011, September 1). 2011 adjusted graduation gap report: NCAA
Division-I football. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI).
Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S. (2011, April
18). Adjusted graduation gap: NCAA Division-I baseball and
softball. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI). College
Sport Research Institute (CSRI). Chapel Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S. (2010, November
16). Adjusted graduation gap: NCAA Division-I men's and women's
basketball. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI). Chapel
Hill, NC.
Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., Lewinter, G.,
& Tomalski, J. (2010, August 26). Adjusted graduation gap: NCAA
D-I football. College Sport Research Institute (CSRI). Chapel
Hill, NC.
Graduation Success Rate (GSR)
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). What is
the Graduation Success Rate? Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Retrieved from http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/sdsu/genrel/
auto_pdf/what-is-grad-success-rate.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2013, October).
Trends in Graduation Success Rates and Federal Graduation Rates
at NCAA Division I Institutions. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/
GSR%2Band%2BFed%2BTrends%2B2013_Final_0.pdf
Big-time College Sport
Hawkins, B. J. (2010). The new plantation: black athletes,
college sports, and predominantly white NCAA institutions. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Southall, R. M., & Weiler, J. D. (2014). NCAA D-I athletic
departments: 21st century company towns. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 161-186.
Southall, R. M., & Staurowsky, E. J. (2013). Cheering on the
collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the
NCAA's redefinition of amateurism. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 37(4), 403-429.
Southall, R. M., Hancock, K. L., Cooper, C. G., & Nagel, M.
S. (2012). College World Series broadcasts: ``They are what
they are.'' Journal of Sports Media, 7(2), 41-60.
Southall, R. M., & Nagel, M. S. (2011). NCAA v. The
Associated Press: Open records ruling may impact future
athletic department activities. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
20(3), 112-114.
Southall, R. M., Southall, C., & Dwyer, B. (2009). 2009 Bowl
Championship Series telecasts: Expressions of big-time college-
sport's commercial institutional logic. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 2, 150-176.
Southall, R. M., Nagel, M. S., Amis, J., & Southall, C.
(2008). A method to March Madness: Institutional logics and the
2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men's
basketball tournament. Journal of Sport Management, 22(6), 677-
700.
Southall, R. M., & Nagel, M. S. (2008). A case-study
analysis of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament
broadcasts: Educational or commercial activity? International
Journal of Sport Communication, 1(4), 516-533.
Ridpath, B. D., Nagel, M. S., & Southall, R. M. (2008). New
rules for a new ballgame: Legislative and judicial rationales
for revamping the NCAA's enforcement process. Entertainment and
Sports Law Journal, 6(1), 1-15.
Appendix: Graduation Rate Data+
Table 1. 1995-2003 FGRs for D-I Football and Men's Basketball
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohort FGR FGR MBB (D-I) FGR FB (D-I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1995 43% 53%
1990 1996 44% 54%
1991 1997 45% 56%
1992 1998 44% 54%
1993 1999 47% 54%
1994 2000 46% 55%
1995 2001 49% 54%
1996 2002 51% 56%
1997 2003 47% 55%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. *COM001*1995-2003 46% 55%
(FGRs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. 2004-05 to 2012-13 FGRs for D-I Football and Men's Basketball
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohort Report FGR MBB D-I (N)* FGR FBS FB (N)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 2004-05 44.0% 300 54.1% 112
1999 2005-06 44.6% 313 54.9% 111
2000 2006-07 45.3% 314 55.0% 112
2001 2007-08 46.0% 317 54.5% 116
2002 2008-09 47.3% 320 54.5% 116
2003 2009-10 47.1% 323 55.0% 116
2004 2010-11 47.2% 326 55.6% 116
2005 2011-12 46.8% 329 56.7% 115
2006 2012-13 46.3% 335 57.7% 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. 46.1% 320 55.3% 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N = NCAA D-I and/or FBS universities for report period.
+ Source: NCAA Student-Athlete Experiences Data Archive (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NCAA/studies/
30022#datasetsSection
Table 3. Comparisons of Graduation Rate Metrics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohort FGR* GSR AGG**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Students 61 N/A N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBS Football 58 70 -18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-I Men's BB 46 70 -32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseball 48 74 -31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female Students 65 N/A N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-I Women's BB 64 85 -14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* FGRs are 2012-13 4-Class Averages. GSRs are 2012-13 figures. Retrieved
from http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/GSR/qaahad13/1_0.pdf
** AGG Reports available at http://csri-sc.org/research/
The Chairman. Thank you for your excellent testimony.
And, finally, Dr. Mark Emmert who is--well, you all know
who he is.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK A. EMMERT, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
Dr. Emmert. Thank you, Senator.
And good afternoon to you and to Senator Thune and----
Senator Booker. Is your microphone on?
Dr. Emmert. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Is it working now? Can you hear me fine?
The Chairman. I notice no difference.
Dr. Emmert. OK.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Emmert. As a recovering university president, I've
learned to project. So thank you very much.
Good afternoon to all of you on the panel. I'm Mark Emmert.
I've served now as the President of the NCAA since October 2010
following 30 years as a professor, a university administrator
and a university president. I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to appear before all of you today and discuss what
I agree are very important issues. And I particularly want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with us on the timing of
this hearing. It's good that we are able to be here.
The NCAA's core purpose, as has already been pointed out,
is to promote the well-being and the success of more than
460,000 student-athletes as they enjoy both world-class
athletic experiences and receive access to topnotch educations.
That's why I've been working diligently with the Division I
Board of Directors, our member universities and all the
stakeholders to drive policy changes that support student-
athlete success and, indeed, address many of the issues that
have already been raised here today.
During my tenure, we've enacted more than a dozen key
reforms. Two notable examples are raising academic standards
and adding the opportunity for a multiple-year scholarships.
As we discuss how to improve college sports today, it's
important to understand that the NCAA is a democratically
governed, membership-led association of nearly 1,100 colleges
and universities. As such, neither I nor any member of my staff
have a vote on association policy or infractions decisions.
It's important to note that, appropriately, in my opinion,
university presidents themselves, are the ultimate
decisionmakers within the association.
Members make rules through a representative process much as
you do in Congress. It is challenging, obviously, to bring
together coaches, athletic administrators, faculty members,
student-athletes and university presidents to achieve consensus
on much of anything, let alone college sports. And while the
pace of change is not what I or many others would like, the
Division I member schools are working very diligently, even as
we speak, to create a new decisionmaking structure that will
yield practical and, I hope, timely results on all of these
issues.
Before we discuss the challenges at hand, let me be clear:
college sports, in my opinion, works extremely well for the
vast majority of our 460,000 student-athletes. And while it can
and should be modified, the collegiate model should in fact be
preserved because of all of the good it provides for so many.
Nonetheless, I agree there are very important changes that need
to be made and many university presidents happen to agree with
me.
Let me describe the most important ones. First, student-
athletes, in my opinion, should be given a scholarship for life
so they may complete a Bachelor's degree even if their
education is delayed for any reason unrelated to a lack of
academic progress or serious misconduct.
Second, scholarships should cover the full and actual cost
of attendance, not simply tuition, room and board, books, and
supplies.
Third, NCAA schools must always lead in the area of health
and safety. For example, the NCAA, along with a variety of
medical experts, released recently, new guidelines that address
the diagnosis, the management and the prevention of sports-
related concussions.
Fourth, the NCAA must work assertively with all of our
universities on sexual assault prevention and support for
victims. This is a national crisis and we can all do better.
Fifth, while all student-athletes today are covered by
insurance for injuries, and the NCAA covers catastrophic
injuries, any gaps in coverage must be closed.
Sixth, the academic success of student-athletes must remain
our ultimate priority. This means providing them with the time
as well as the resources they need to take advantage of the
opportunities at college campuses, as our two former college
athletes have testified today.
Finally, all changes that are made, these and others, must
maintain support for Title IX and cannot come at the cost of
student-athletes in women's and non-revenue generating sports.
The NCAA provides countless opportunities to men and women,
including opportunities for many from low-income families, many
who would not otherwise be able to attend college. In fact,
some 82,000 current student-athletes are first generation
college students. And at the risk of correcting Mr. Bradshaw,
it is now $2.7 billion in athletic scholarships that are
provided to students that make that a reality.
Further, NCAA revenues are reinvested in our mission.
Specifically, last year's revenue allowed us to conduct 89
national championships in 23 different sports with nearly
50,000 student-athletes participating in these championships
across the entire country. Those revenues allowed us to provide
$700 million directly to colleges and universities in all three
divisions, $100 million of which was used to cover extra
expenses and emergency expenses for Division I student-
athletes. Further, those revenues allowed us to cover the $14
million insurance premium for catastrophic insurance policies
for our student-athletes.
College sports are serving student-athletes very, very well
for the most part. Yes, there are changes to both policy and
the culture that are needed, and they require frank
conversations like the one we're having here and serious
actions.
I'm committed to working with you and our member schools to
ensure that student-athletes have all the opportunities for
success that they deserve. And I want to thank you for the
invitation, Mr. Chairman, to appear today. I look forward to
taking your questions and working with you in the future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Emmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mark A. Emmert, President,
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Good afternoon Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and
distinguished members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the role of the NCAA in promoting the well-being and academic
success of student-athletes. Let me say at the outset that I
personally, along with the entire leadership of the NCAA, share many of
the concerns outlined by the members of this Committee. I am pleased to
be here today to talk to you about those issues, and I commit and look
forward to working with you and your staffs to address them directly
and constructively.
Our mission is multidimensional, but first and foremost it is to
promote student-athlete success in the classroom and on the field to
ultimately enable them to succeed throughout life. And while we strive
every day to do just that, I strongly believe improvements need to be
made and more work must be done. Every day the membership, NCAA staff
and I work single-mindedly to accomplish our goal.
I have spent most of my 40-year career in higher education as a
university professor, provost or president. In my many years on campus
at schools of different sizes and missions, I witnessed first-hand and
came to believe deeply in the valuable role of sports in education.
This belief, and my desire to address the changing needs of 21st
century student-athletes, led me to my role as NCAA President.
Since assuming the presidency of the NCAA in 2010, I have actively
worked with the Division I Board of Directors, NCAA Executive
Committee, member colleges and universities, and varied stakeholders to
drive much-needed reform and address many of the concerns that surround
intercollegiate athletics. Indeed, in August 2011, Division I leaders
convened to launch the current reform efforts. Division I has a large
and diverse membership with an equally large and diverse range of
viewpoints. Unfortunately, this can at times slow the pace of reform in
our democratically-governed association. We have made significant
strides in some areas and continue to work through others. No one is
more impatient than I am. We will continue to push to meet the needs
and challenges of the times.
Before I address the challenges, I want to begin by highlighting a
core truth of intercollegiate athletics. For the vast majority of those
who participate in NCAA sports--more than 460,000 young men and women
each year at 1,084 institutions across three divisions and in 23
different sports--the experience is exactly what it is intended to be:
a meaningful extension of the educational process that provides the
opportunity for students to compete fairly against other students, in
an educational environment. While NCAA member schools spend roughly
$13.8 billion per year on athletics--including $2.7 billion on direct
scholarship support--athletic spending represents a very small
proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.
Further, those same schools generate far less revenue from athletics
than they spend: the deficit of operating expense over generated
revenue is greater than $6 billion per year collectively. These NCAA
institutions make this imbalanced investment because they are not
pursuing intercollegiate athletics as a vehicle for maximizing revenue
or minimizing expenses; rather, they believe that athletics, like many
other extracurricular activities, plays an integral role in the overall
educational experience. Our data demonstrate that 13 years after
college enrollment, 86 percent of former Division I student-athletes
favorably report that they count their athletics experience as an
important part of their overall college experience.
Moreover, research conducted by Nobel Prize winning labor economist
Professor James Heckman of the University of Chicago, which he based on
the National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS), shows that
participants in athletics are more likely to go to college, to stay and
graduate from college, to secure a good job after college, and earn
more money within a few years after college and for a lifetime. These
results hold for football and men's basketball players, within Division
I and across all divisions, and are accurate across many peer
comparisons, including those from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds
as well as disadvantaged or difficult family circumstances, controlling
for standardized testing variables and non-cognitive traits. College is
a powerful force for social advancement and building human capital, and
research shows that athletics has a positive relationship with that
force. Participation in intercollegiate sports has been a significant
means to realizing the benefits of college for hundreds of thousands of
young people for decades.
For the millions of other students, alumni and fans who follow
their school teams, sports provide a rallying point and a source of
pride and unity that weaves together diverse communities. This is a
uniquely American phenomenon. There is no model elsewhere in the world
where athletics are tied so directly to colleges and universities as an
extension of the educational process. Some countries, in fact, have
indicated a desire to emulate our model and have visited with us to
study it. They do so because of the teamwork and leadership cultivated
by intercollegiate sports, as well as the sense of community and common
purpose they create. Student-athletes receive training and education on
subjects spanning from how to keep themselves physically fit and
healthy for a lifetime to how to deal with the challenges of stress,
loss and adversity, how to manage multiple responsibilities, and how to
properly manage time. For all of these reasons, intercollegiate
athletics is appropriately situated as part of the educational
experience within higher education.
Our research shows most Americans view intercollegiate athletics in
a positive light. That said, my hope--both in our discussions today and
in my role as NCAA president--is to address concerns about the well-
being of all student-athletes. I do so with the understanding that the
most visible athletics programs in college sports reside within
Division I FBS football and Division I men's basketball, and those
programs disproportionately shape public opinion about the NCAA and the
experience of student-athletes. The students in these sports are a
critical part of the collegiate model of athletics, and we must ensure
that their experiences reflect the fact that they are students first.
No system is perfect, and the same holds true for intercollegiate
athletics. Over the history of the NCAA, we have witnessed some issues
and challenges in every sport in every division. Yet the sports of
football and men's basketball at 123 well-known institutions in the
larger conferences attract the most attention, make the most news and
are the subject of the most criticism. The student-athletes who
participate in these sports at this level represent only 3.5 percent of
all NCAA student-athletes. Yet these are the sports and institutions
that prompt many questions relating to multi-year scholarships,
transfer rules and behaviors, health care for student-athletes and the
costs of college sports. These are areas of concern to me and to the
Division I Board of Directors, a representative body of 18 university
presidents who are appointed by the membership from all of Division I.
And, these issues have been the subject of robust debate among member
schools in Division I over the last several years.
Yet it is not only those programs that need our attention as we
strive to make our system better. The college and university members
and I also are concerned about issues around the academic preparation,
health and safety and overall success of all student-athletes. These
include issues such as time demands on student-athletes; the impact of
participation on the health of student-athletes now and in the future,
especially in the area of traumatic brain injury; the full cost of
attending college; and how the 346 institutions in Division I as a
whole should be structured and governed. We must depend on good data to
inform values-based decision-making and then follow through according
to those values. We must uphold our commitment to the academic and
athletic success of all 460,000 student-athletes.
More often than not, the tension has been around how institutions
of vastly different resources and missions will compete against one
another. The drive to compete--the very thing that makes sports such a
vital feature of American culture--often complicates attempts to bring
serious change or rapid reform to intercollegiate athletics. The
diversity of Division I creates both its appeal (Cinderella stories as
well as traditional rivalries) and its challenges.
Before I address on an issue-by-issue basis some of the concerns
expressed about college sports, I want to highlight three key points
about intercollegiate athletics that often go unnoticed or unmentioned.
First, NCAA sports have provided and continue to provide an
enormous number of men and women access to higher education.
Over the last several decades, this number has included many
whose financial situation would have otherwise prevented them
from attending college. In fact, just shy of 20 percent of all
student-athletes are first-generation college students, and a
similar number report that they would not have attended college
at all if not for athletics. Division III and the Ivy League do
not permit athletically related financial aid, but they do
provide other types of financial aid to student-athletes. And,
in Divisions I and II, more than $2.7 billion annually in
direct financial aid helps make all this possible. Of that
amount, $2.1 billion is spent on athletic scholarships in
Division I alone.
Second, the NCAA has made substantial progress in supporting
the academic success of student-athletes. Improving student-
athlete academic success has been a concentrated effort by the
Division I membership for more than two decades. Division I,
led by its Board of Directors, has steadily increased the
academic requirements for initial eligibility, which has helped
motivate many high school students to enroll in college
preparatory courses they otherwise might not have taken.
Moreover, the Board also has approved membership initiatives
that require student-athletes make continuous progress toward a
specific degree in order to maintain eligibility once in
college. The NCAA has developed two metrics to get a better
picture of how well student-athletes are performing from
semester to semester, and ultimately graduate. The first metric
is the Academic Progress Rate (APR), which examines how well a
team is doing in the classroom every semester. The APR is a
strong predictor of eventual student-athlete graduation rates.
It also serves as the basis for penalties if certain threshold
rates are not achieved and sets the standard that teams must
meet to compete in the post-season. The second metric is the
Graduation Success Rate (GSR), which uses the same six-year
window as the Federal graduation rate but requires institutions
to account for student-athletes who transfer in and those who
transfer out in good academic standing. Because it accounts for
transfers-in and transfers-out, it is a much more appropriate
rate than the current Federal formulation that ignores
transfers-in and counts transfers-out as academic failures. It
is also superior to proposed alternatives, such as the Adjusted
Graduation Gap (AGG), which makes a number of faulty
assumptions about student-athlete academic pathways and results
in a ``hypothetical'' graduation gap rather than a real
counting of actual graduates.
In 2013, the GSR for all student-athletes in Division I was 82
percent, one point higher than a year ago and eight points
higher than in 1995. More than 11,000 student-athletes have
graduated over the last decade who may not have graduated had
the GSR remained at 1995 levels. And in the two sports I have
specifically raised in this testimony, student-athletes
competing in football at Division I FBS schools are graduating
at a rate of 71 percent, and members of Division I men's
basketball teams are graduating at a rate of 73 percent. Since
1995, the rate of graduation for men's basketball has increased
17 percentage points, with a 22 percentage-point increase for
African-American male student-athletes. For FBS football in the
same timeframe, the graduation rate has increased eight
percentage points, with an 11-point increase for African-
American football student-athletes. This is remarkable
progress, resulting from significant research into the academic
behaviors of students and the determination of university
presidents to raise the standards. And these numbers are
projected to continue to rise.
Also worth noting, our Study of College Outcomes and Recent
Experiences (SCORE) research indicates that between 25 and 30
percent of former student-athletes report earning a graduate
degree by age 30. U.S. Census research continues to show those
with a college degree earn $1 million more over a lifetime than
those without a degree. Those with doctorates earn an
additional $500,000. Higher self-esteem, better physical health
and reduced rate of smoking are other observed outcomes of
attending college. The benefits to earning a degree are real by
any measure.
Third, a valuable untold story about the contribution of
intercollegiate athletics is that college sports helped shape
many leaders and great citizens of America. Indeed, five
members of this Committee were student-athletes. Six of the
last 11 presidents of the United States were student-athletes.
Supreme Court justices, countless Cabinet officials,
ambassadors, military leaders, astronauts and other senior
government personnel, as well as captains of business, competed
in intercollegiate athletics.
These individuals and innumerable others learned much about
leadership and life from their days on the field or court. They
learned about the pursuit of excellence and how to work as a
team from coaches who were teachers of persistence and
resilience, self-discipline and self-sacrifice. In our surveys,
more than 90 percent of former student-athletes report that
participation in college athletics enhanced their leadership,
work ethic, teamwork and time management skills. I'm sure the
five of you on this Committee could speak volumes about the
experiences and opportunities intercollegiate athletics
presented you.
To summarize these three points: Intercollegiate athletics provides
more financial aid to more student-athletes than ever before; more
student-athletes are graduating than ever before; and student-athletes
enter college better prepared and leave college better conditioned to
take on leadership roles throughout our society. These are the central
facts about the experience of intercollegiate athletics for the vast
majority of student-athletes.
As I discuss specific areas of interest and concern, it may be
helpful to reiterate that the NCAA is a membership-driven association.
Nearly 1,100 NCAA member colleges and universities work together to
create rules for fair and safe competition and to protect the
collegiate model of athletics. Those rules are administered by NCAA
national office staff, which also organizes 89 national championships
in 23 sports and provides other resources to support student-athletes
and the schools they attend. The NCAA president is hired by the NCAA
Executive Committee, which comprises college and university presidents
from all three divisions. The Executive Committee also sets policy on
Association-wide issues and approves the NCAA budget. I work at their
pleasure to help schools implement the rules set by NCAA membership and
to oversee the daily operations of the Association's national office in
Indianapolis. For that reason, my role should not be equated with a
league commissioner, as I do not have those powers. Neither I nor any
NCAA national office staff member has a vote on Association policy or
infractions decisions.
To enact reform, members must make rules through committees, much
like Congress does. These committees include student-athletes, coaches,
athletics administrators, faculty members and university presidents.
For Division I, the Board of Directors is the decision-maker on most
important issues. The 346 universities that comprise Division I can;
however, overturn decisions of the Board and the committees below it
with a 62.5 percent majority vote. This scenario happened in 2012,
after the Board twice approved a miscellaneous expense allowance to
cover additional costs of college attendance for student-athletes. In
short, the member universities make the rules and, like Congress, they
do not always agree.
Given the diversity of the Division I membership and the tens of
thousands of individual cases, the membership also has created a broad
range of waivers, exemptions and exceptions to assist student-athletes
in unique circumstances. These requests are granted either by NCAA
staff or a membership committee in the vast majority of cases. There is
even a process by which membership policy can be set aside to avoid
certain unanticipated or unintended consequences. All these processes
are often slow, sometimes cumbersome and, by the time of passage, can
be anti-climactic. This, of course, is the common complaint of any
democratic process in which there is more than one opinion of what the
outcome should be. As I will discuss next, we are working to normalize
and rationalize our governance process to achieve more common-sense,
practical and timely results.
Specific Issues of Interest
Multiyear Grants
There has been considerable focus on the length of grants-in-aid,
commonly referred to as athletic scholarships, awarded to student-
athletes. I, along with many in the membership, have supported the
multiyear grant and believe it is a critical component of the ongoing
reform efforts to expand benefits to student-athletes. It is worth
noting that since athletically related financial aid was first awarded
in the 1950s, most grants have been renewed for multiple years (even
when the original award was for one year). Indeed, in most cases it is
renewed for the full five years in which student-athletes have four
years of eligibility. Further, under NCAA bylaw 15.3.2, whether a grant
is for one year and renewable or for multiple years, an institution may
not revoke the aid for any reason--including injury--unless the student
has been afforded an opportunity to challenge the decision through an
institutional review board consisting of faculty and non-athletics
administrators. Nonetheless, many in the Division I membership and I
support permitting institutions the option of awarding multiyear
scholarships, and many have committed to do so on a regular basis. We
have recently seen some institutions, such as Indiana University and
the University of Southern California, make announcements of their
commitment, while many schools across the Association, such as
Northwestern, have been providing such grants since it was permitted.
In 2011, the Board of Directors approved the option to award
guaranteed multiyear grants at the time of enrollment. As it turned
out, a majority of member institutions disagreed with that decision and
mounted an effort to override the Board's decision. The effort to
override failed by the slimmest of margins. A 62.5 percent majority is
required for override, and 62.12 percent supported the override in a
roll-call vote. This issue is a good example of the challenges of
implementing reform in a membership association.
Transfer Rules
There is also considerable concern regarding student-athletes
transferring. The National Student Clearinghouse reported in 2012 that
more than a third of all college students in America transfer at some
point before earning a degree. In intercollegiate athletics, only 11.7
percent of all student-athletes competing in Division I during the
2011-12 academic year were transfers; one of the highest percentages of
transfers, nearly 28 percent, was in men's basketball. Despite the fact
that transferring is a common occurrence among students, there is
academic risk in doing so. Any student-athlete may transfer to any
school at any time, similar to all college students. There is no NCAA
rule that prohibits transfer. In order to foster academic success,
however, transferring student-athletes in certain sports must sit out
from competition the first year after their transfer unless he or she
meets certain exceptions or a waiver is granted. Research shows
student-athletes who transfer are less likely to earn a degree than
those who remain at their original school, and the APR for transfers
from four-year institutions is 21 points lower. Most student-athletes
who are not eligible to compete immediately benefit from a year to
adjust to their new school and focus on their classes. Student-athletes
who must sit out a year of competition at their new school in most
cases may still receive athletics-related financial aid and practice
with their new team.
NCAA members decided in April 2014 that student-athletes
transferring due to difficult life circumstances will be granted a
sixth year to complete their eligibility. However, there is no longer a
waiver option to get permission to compete immediately. This change
becomes effective with the 2015-16 academic year. The altered policy
allows transfer student-athletes facing challenging personal issues the
opportunity to focus on what is important and adjust to a new academic
environment before facing the pressures of competition without limiting
their overall eligibility.
National Letter of Intent (NLI)
The NLI program was originated by conference commissioners in both
Divisions I and II and is administered by the NCAA on behalf of the
conferences. The terms of the program commit a scholarship student-
athlete to a specific institution for one year. If the student-athlete
does not fulfill the obligation, he or she must sit out from
competition for one year and lose one of his or her four seasons of
competition. There is also a process for release from the NLI, and a
prospective student-athlete can sign an athletics aid agreement which
has no binding effect on him or her to attend the institution. The
process is entirely voluntary, and there are upsides and downsides to
participating. On the one hand, signing a letter of intent effectively
ends the recruiting process, and the prospective student-athlete is
free to focus on finishing high school without the attention and
disruption of the recruiting process. On the other hand, a 17- or 18-
year old may not fully consider all the options and may want to change
his or her mind after the letter is signed. It should be noted that
parents are also involved in the NLI process and are required to sign
in addition to the prospective student-athlete if they are under the
age of 21. Over the last five years, fewer than 2.5 percent of
prospective student-athletes have requested a release, and 95 percent
of those requests were granted.
Health and Accident Care Coverage
As I am certain you understand, health insurance is different from
accident or injury insurance. The NCAA has focused its rules on
ensuring student-athletes are covered for injuries or accidents that
occur as a result of athletics participation. Currently, Division I
members may provide unlimited health care for student-athletes. In
addition, NCAA members have enacted rules that require all members to
ensure a student-athlete has insurance coverage in place that covers
athletically related injuries before they can practice or play. The
NCAA also provides full coverage for all student-athletes competing in
one of our championship events. As I have previously stated, not every
NCAA school has the same resources available. Thus, NCAA rules permit
schools to provide the type and scope of coverage that meets their
unique campus circumstances. Where a school cannot provide the
coverage, it must be in place through a policy purchased individually
or through the student-athlete's parents or guardians. Division I
members spend more than $135 million each year on medical care and
insurance premiums for their student-athletes. In addition, the NCAA
pays 100 percent of the $13.6 million premium for the catastrophic
injury insurance program--a safety-net program that picks up medical
costs above $90,000 after other institutional or individual policies
have been exhausted. The program provides $20 million in lifetime
benefits to student-athletes who are catastrophically injured while
playing or practicing. The program covers all 460,000 student-athletes
at active member schools in all divisions. It is the country's most
comprehensive program of its kind in terms of lifetime limits and
benefits. Certainly, health care of our student-athletes is a priority
for the Association, and any gaps in medical insurance coverage should
be identified and closed.
Rising Costs of College Sports
Notwithstanding increases in revenue from some sports, in my view,
the rising costs at America's universities are among the biggest issues
facing higher education generally and intercollegiate athletics
specifically, and they are among the most difficult to address. I am
especially concerned that these financial challenges can make it
difficult to sustain athletics programs for women and other student-
athletes who compete in sports that do not generate revenue or a lot of
publicity, but provide the same educational benefits as the highest-
profile sports. This is particularly true in light of the great
progress that has been made with respect to Title IX over the last four
decades. Rising costs create significant issues for individual
institutions and are the source of significant tension among
institutions within a division, subdivision or even a conference. As I
noted earlier, the widening gap between educational institutions with
greater resources and those struggling to keep up often plays out in
uncompromising positions on national policy on many issues and
especially with regard to benefits for student-athletes. This widening
gap in resources arguably has roots in the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of the antitrust laws to the NCAA in NCAA v. Board of
Regents of University of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1985), wherein the NCAA's
efforts to contain costs and commercialism were stuck down by the
court. As recently as within the last two years, further efforts to
confront these rising costs and find solutions along even the periphery
of the issue have demonstrated how polarizing and entrenched these
divergent views can be. Additionally, efforts by forces external to the
membership could further erode the NCAA's ability to take practical
steps to resolve financial and policy issues.
Many have argued for greater transparency of individual
institutional costs among member schools. I agree with this recommended
reform, and we have made some progress toward greater disclosure. But
while public institutions are accustomed to making their financial
information public, private universities have no such obligation.
Accordingly, no consensus has been reached to provide financial data
other than in aggregated formats. Frankly, it is difficult to envision
an immediate resolution. The members of this Committee represent states
with 133 Division I member schools, and I suspect you understand from
your regular engagement with them how widely varied, and deeply held,
the beliefs can be.
Student-Athlete Misconduct and Discipline
As a lifelong educator committed to a safe environment in which to
learn, I am deeply troubled by misconduct, unfortunately some criminal,
by students on campus. I share the concern raised by other educators,
administrators, the public and Members of this Committee regarding
allegations of possible crimes perpetuated by or against student-
athletes. Some of those allegations have proven true and are truly
heinous and tragic. If you had asked me during my tenure as president
of two large universities what kept me awake at night, I would have
told you one of my greatest concerns was the potential for crime
against our students, faculty or the broader campus community. We must
do our part to ensure an academic environment free of harassment or
abuse. Of course, we must be careful not to cast all students or
student-athletes as criminals or villains because of the behavior of a
few. The overwhelming majority of the 460,000 student-athletes who
participate in college sports annually are good campus and community
citizens. They follow the rules of the campus and the laws in the
community. And as concerned as I am about campus violence, it also is
true that violations of criminal law do not fall under the purview of
the NCAA. Local law enforcement or, when appropriate, state and Federal
law enforcement officials have jurisdiction for alleged criminal
activity and violations of law. Decisions about eligibility to
participate in athletics also are retained locally by campus
authorities in the first instance, and rightly so. Opinions differ with
regard to how and at what point eligibility to participate is impacted.
Some campus officials believe student-athletes must be held to a higher
standard than other students, and the earliest stages of investigation
by law enforcement should result in suspension of the privilege to play
sports. Others hold that the judicial imperative that all citizens are
innocent until proven guilty must pertain to student-athletes as well.
But in either case, the membership has made it clear that these are
local decisions and, as a result, our role as a national body is
limited. Nonetheless, recognizing drug and alcohol abuse has been
linked to some of the violent behavior and misconduct, the NCAA has
invested time and resources in programs that address drug and alcohol
abuse prevention. Indeed, the NCAA national office, together with its
member institutions, has engaged in a number of ongoing educational and
training programs on both the local and national levels to provide
assistance to campuses. A few examples include:
The NCAA is working with a consortium of nationally
recognized advisers to develop a Violence Prevention Handbook,
which is scheduled to be released this summer. The handbook
will define the issues, identify Federal regulations through
Title IX and the Campus SaVE Act, include education on
prevention and response, best practices for coaches and
student-athletes, and present models of collaboration between
athletics and campus professionals with expertise in prevention
and response. The consortium and follow-up efforts stem from
the 2011 NCAA national summit on sexual assault/interpersonal
violence prevention.
For 23 years, the NCAA has supported the annual APPLE
Conference Promoting Student-Athlete Wellness and Substance
Abuse Prevention, designed as a strategic planning conference
conducted by the University of Virginia Gordie Center.
Participation in the conference facilitates athletics programs
assessing their needs, developing action plans and implementing
solutions to address substance abuse and consequences.
Annually, more than 70 institutions attend, and more than 50
percent of NCAA member schools have attended at least once.
Through a competitive grant program called NCAA CHOICES, the
NCAA awards individual colleges and universities $30,000, a
total of $450,000 annually, to fund institution-driven projects
that engage athletics with campus efforts to reduce alcohol
abuse and negative consequences, with ongoing evaluation and
consultation from the George Mason Center for the Advancement
of Public Health. More than 270 NCAA institutions have received
NCAA CHOICES Alcohol Education Grants.
The NCAA helps support the Step UP! Bystander Intervention
Program developed by the University of Arizona. This program
trains student-athletes to safely and effectively intervene
when a teammate or friend is in distress, in danger or heading
for trouble. Bystander intervention training has been
identified as an effective approach in violence prevention and
response. The NCAA Sport Science Institute recently sponsored
the second facilitator training on Step UP!, which included
participation from two-person teams from 40 NCAA members
institutions.
The NCAA sponsors National Hazing Prevention week, provides
a Hazing Prevention Handbook to its member institutions and
consults on the National Hazing Study. NCAA staff partners with
other stakeholders--namely Greek Affairs--to effectively
address hazing prevention on member campuses.
In partnership with Student Affairs Administrators in Higher
Education (NASPA), the NCAA piloted the 360 Proof alcohol
education program at 36 Division III schools this year. This
free, web-based program provides student affairs and athletics
administrators an assessment tool to see how much information
they already have about alcohol use on campus, inventory
existing alcohol prevention activities and fill gaps based on
the National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Recommended Strategies. It also includes a personalized
feedback intervention, or PFI tool, to help students assess
their own use and risk. Studies show that PFIs reduce the
frequency and number of alcoholic beverages consumed, as well
as effectively dispel myths about drinking. Following a
successful pilot, the program will expand to include banned
substances and street drugs in 2017.
The NCAA provides online Title IX compliance and best
practices materials and video classes. Topics include sexual
harassment and violence prevention and guidance from the U.S.
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.
The NCAA Sport Science Institute has identified mental
health promotion and intervention as a critical initiative,
holding a meeting of health care experts in November 2013 to
fully review the issue. This meeting has resulted in the
development of an anthology of issues impacting mental health
and best practices for member institutions to assure early
identification and treatment for those student-athletes in
need.
I believe these educational initiatives are very helpful in
combatting the serious issue of campus violence and student-athlete
misconduct, yet the NCAA may continue to draw criticism for not
inserting itself directly into specific instances of alleged student-
athlete misconduct or criminal behavior. While we certainly will
cooperate with any law enforcement activity, I remain convinced that to
insert the NCAA directly into the issues described above would
undermine local efforts to manage the conduct of student-athletes
similarly to that of other students, even when the result may not be
consistent from one campus to another. Nonetheless, I believe this
issue is important and requires more dialogue, and I will encourage
NCAA leadership and membership to continue to explore additional areas
of engagement.
Academic Preparation and Success
As I have described in this testimony, the academic success of
student-athletes has been a major area of emphasis for the NCAA, and
since the mid-1980s the Association has seen dramatic results. When the
NCAA first began collecting graduation data more than 25 years ago,
student-athletes were lagging behind the rest of the student body. Two
years into those reform efforts, student-athlete graduation rates had
drawn even with the general student population; later, they pulled
ahead. That upward trajectory has continued for more than two decades.
Today, student-athletes consistently graduate at higher rates than
their counterparts in the general student population. More than 80
percent of all student-athletes graduate, as measured by the GSR metric
noted earlier, and white males are the only demographic group who
remain below their counterparts.
But this work is never done. For example, while the graduation
rates of African-American student-athletes in Division I are
considerably ahead of their counterparts in the student body, they lag
behind those of white student-athletes, and that is not acceptable. We
see steady improvement, but we must not accept this discrepancy as
simply ``the way it is.'' The NCAA continues to study research data
that predicts how well students are likely to do in completing
requirements for specific degrees and then setting standards that will
spur even greater success.
One of the most frequent criticisms is that these results are aided
by courses that are alleged to lack serious content and majors that
lack rigor. As required by our bylaws, on NCAA campuses the majors and
courses available to student-athletes are the same ones available to
the entire student body, and the standards for instruction and approval
of majors is the responsibility of the faculty and not the athletics
department. The data from our Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations, and
Learning of Students in College study, known as GOALS, show that 87
percent of student-athletes would have chosen their current majors
again even if they were not student-athletes and that personal interest
and career fit played the greatest role in the selection of a major.
The requirements for a degree in bio-medical engineering may well be
more rigorous than those for political science (my undergraduate
major), or business, or English, or any number of other degrees. But
these courses and majors are not without serious or useful content. Of
course, human behavior is such that there will be isolated instances of
academic misconduct and the abuse of policies. The college and
university members take these issues on their campuses very seriously
and have largely retained authority and responsibility to handle
matters when they arise. However, the membership has empowered the
national office to investigate and act where it appears that student-
athletes may be receiving disparate academic treatment from the general
student body. All in all, I am very pleased with the commitment to and
results from academic reform over the last two decades.
However, as I have discussed, the college and university members
have given the NCAA the responsibility to explore potential NCAA
violations. When these possible violations also involve issues around
academic misconduct, the NCAA does not second-guess academic decisions
of the institution or look into matters that may or may not violate
other policies or authorities. The NCAA members and staff take
allegations of academic misconduct seriously, and generally the NCAA
staff conducts full and thorough investigations collaboratively with
the institution. In fact, recently, the NCAA issued a Notice of Inquiry
to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in connection with
the information first examined in its 2011 investigation. As in any
case, the enforcement staff makes clear at the time of an investigation
that it may revisit a matter if new information becomes available. In
this instance, the NCAA has determined that individuals previously
unwilling to cooperate with the initial investigation may now agree to
speak with the NCAA enforcement staff and, therefore, has decided to
reopen its investigation. Further, the institution instructed its
outside investigator to share relevant information from his
investigation confidentially with the NCAA enforcement staff.
Impact of Participation on Student-Athlete Health
The NCAA national office and its member colleges and universities
have been committed to the study and promulgation of sports health and
science issues for decades. Indeed, the NCAA was established in part to
provide safety rules governing college football. Much of the study in
the past has taken place on our campuses and has engaged medical and
sports science experts from throughout the country, and the results of
that research have been publicly available. Moreover, a membership
committee comprising physicians, athletic trainers, strength and
conditioning coaches, nutritionists, drug abuse prevention
professionals and other athletics administrators--the Competitive
Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, or CSMAS--has provided
oversight of health and safety for more than 30 years. CSMAS has also
provided the Sports Medicine Handbook as expert guidance to the
membership on best practices to protect student-athlete health and
safety. I wanted to bolster expert oversight and support for the
membership, especially as we have entered into new areas of medical
concerns surrounding participation. Fifteen months ago, I created the
position of chief medical officer of the NCAA and hired a renowned
neurologist as the first such CMO. With his leadership, we have created
the NCAA Sport Science Institute, through which we have already
convened task forces on concussion and mental health and begun
substantive conversations with other medical, athletics and government
groups to drive policy and action. In May, we launched a $30 million
joint initiative with the U.S. Department of Defense to fund the most
comprehensive study of concussions ever conducted and issue an
educational challenge to change the culture of concussion reporting and
management. Just this week, we released guidelines on concussion
diagnosis and management, the correct model to provide medical staff
independence from the athletics department in treating student-
athletes, and football practice guidelines designed to reduce
concussions and other injuries. They represent the consensus of more
than 10 medical and athletic trainer associations, as well as coaches
and conferences. This degree of collaboration and buy-in means real
changes and benefits to student-athletes, starting immediately.
We must be ever-vigilant to the impact of athletics participation
on students. Safety measures to better protect students who play
football student-athletes have been a primary concern since the NCAA's
founding in 1906, and the NCAA takes seriously its safety commitment to
all the sports it sponsors. The issue has been a significant gap in
sport science and medical research compared to changes in competitive
expectations. We have followed closely and are working to address many
concerns beyond concussions, specifically knee injuries and the impact
of over-specialization in youth sports. By late summer, we hope to have
completed work with the members to develop a new mental health
resource. The protection of student-athlete health and safety is a job
that is never complete; there is no guarantee of safety whenever anyone
steps out to practice or competes in a sports activity. However, the
NCAA and its members will continue to be true to our health and safety
mission and will carefully consider when changes in the health and
safety space are appropriate.
Time Demands on Student-Athletes
In 1991, the membership set national policy that limited, for the
first time, the supervised time student-athletes were allowed to commit
to their sports to 20 hours per week. It was a bold move at the time
and was disparaged by student-athletes who did not believe 20 hours a
week was sufficient time to develop their full athletics potential, as
well as by most coaches, who wanted their student-athletes committing
more and more time to preparing for competition. Their reaction was and
still is an especially true sentiment for student-athletes who
participated in high school and grass-roots athletic experiences that
involved intensive training and travel. The details of the legislation
left ample room for interpretation and recognized that voluntary
individual or group workouts likely could not be curbed. In the NCAA
GOALS study, students who participate in Division I football report
they spend 40 to 45 hours per week on football and about 40 hours on
their academic efforts. What we have today is a rule that appears to be
inadequate in limiting time spent on sports to the intended 20 hours.
The big question is: What can be done about it? Athletes are by nature
competitive and disciplined. With or without influences to the
contrary, athletes will push themselves and their teammates to pursue
excellence in preparation for competition. In fact, our data show that
student-athletes participating in Division III football report spending
an average of 33 hours per week on their sport. It would be difficult
to find a group at any level that reports spending fewer than 25 hours
per week on the sport. In the end, for all student-athletes, athletics
is a time-consuming endeavor, but one they choose to pursue to the
fullest. The Division I Board and I are searching for solutions to
ensure that student-athletes maintain a better balance between
academics and athletics with an emphasis on dedicating additional time
to academic pursuits to promote their success once their playing days
are over. I pledge to continue working to achieve exactly that, but I
hope my testimony has informed the Committee of the difficulties of
affecting such culture changes.
Student-Athlete Benefits
For decades, there have been some who claim that Division I
student-athletes in football and men's basketball are not receiving the
benefits they deserve and would be better served if they were treated
as employees and paid for services. As a person with more than four
decades in higher education, I disagree with the notion that the
student-athlete relationship with an institution is at all akin to an
employment relationship. While not a party to the Northwestern v.
National Labor Relations Board matter, last week the NCAA filed an
amicus brief in support of Northwestern's appeal. It is our position in
that brief that scholarship student-athletes are not employees. Indeed,
we argue they are not just primarily students, they are exclusively
students. They are exclusively students because both of their major
activities of being a student and being an athlete are interrelated in
their overall educational pursuit.
This concern around payment for services has risen in direct
proportion to: the rising commercial television exposure of the two
sports through television; the mounting media fees networks are willing
to pay to broadcast the inventory of regular-and post-season; the
expansion of athletics facilities; and the heights to which coaching
and other salaries have grown. Again, because of the way the U.S.
Supreme Court applied the antitrust laws to the NCAA in Board of
Regents and in Law v. NCAA, and because the NCAA does not have an
antitrust exemption like professional sports leagues, the NCAA has no
authority to limit coaches' compensation, prevent conference
realignment or otherwise control expenditures. These behaviors have led
some to argue that with so much money in the system, student-athletes
are not fairly compensated for the revenue some believe they generate.
I firmly believe that argument is unsound.
One differentiating component of the American collegiate model of
athletics as compared to other models is that those who participate
generally do not do so for the value of tangible benefits they receive.
Rather, they are in fact students and treated as such.
The value of the benefits student-athletes in Division I FBS
football and Division I men's basketball receive on an annual basis, if
monetized, could easily be between $120,000 and $180,000 or more. These
benefits are not compensation, and such educational support doesn't
make them any less a student-athlete in the collegiate model than one
in Division III who does not receive athletic-based financial aid. If
both are students and are treated as students first who are competing
against other students, they are part of the collegiate model.
I believe that schools should be allowed the opportunity to provide
student-athletes with resources to cover the full cost of attendance--
and I have advocated for such additional aid. It has been difficult to
find a workable compromise within the Division I membership on this
matter, even though it has been discussed for more than a decade and
twice advanced by the Board of Directors. Such a proposal finds favor
with institutions that have sufficient resources, while institutions
that struggle to make the financial ends meet find it a threat to their
competitiveness. Structural and governance changes may be necessary
before progress can be made. But I can say that the Board of Directors
and I will continue to look for solutions. And with every solution
proposed, we make certain that our actions will not damage or undermine
efforts to advance the principles of Title IX.
The most important thing for young people in college is to focus on
education and earn their degrees. Attempts to label student-athletes as
employees rather than students due to their participation in a
voluntary athletic activity that establishes no expectation of
compensation when they enroll can only blur and, in fact, undermine the
focus on education. These attempts are ultimately not in the best
interest of the student-athlete or the college environment.
Financial Underpinning of Intercollegiate Athletics
In the world of higher education, we must rely on cross-
subsidization--maximizing revenue from the areas that can generate more
than their costs and reallocating the additional revenue to those areas
that can never cover their costs. For example, we rely on large
freshman survey courses such as history, English and psychology with
one lecturer and a few graduate assistants for a few hundred students
to generate sufficient revenue to help support disciplines such as
nursing, music or economics that have smaller instructor-to-student
ratios. If not for this cross-subsidization, we simply would not have
comprehensive universities. And we have applied the same approach in
athletics. Few football and men's basketball programs can generate
revenues sufficient to cover the costs of those programs and the costs
of another dozen or so sports for both men and women. The balance comes
from the institution's general operating budget or student fees. If
colleges and universities did not use this cross-subsidization
approach, they would not have comprehensive athletics programs. So,
while it is true that some male student-athletes in Division I football
and basketball participate in events that generate revenue used to
support other sports, it is also true that the tuition for students in
freshman history helps pay to train nurses.
How NCAA Revenues are Used
As an Association, almost all revenues that accrue to the NCAA are
passed along, as I will describe, either as direct distributions to the
membership or for services that benefit student-athletes.
Last year, NCAA revenues totaled a little more than $900 million.
Of that, more than 90 percent was directly distributed to the
membership or provided direct membership services, such as sponsoring
89 championships. Three-quarters of that revenue was generated through
a 14-year multimedia agreement with CBS and Turner Broadcasting System,
providing the rights to broadcast the Division I Men's Basketball
Championship. The vast majority of the other 25 percent of NCAA revenue
comes from NCAA championship ticket sales, an ESPN media contract for
all other championships, and investment earnings. Each year the NCAA
Executive Committee, composed of 19 presidents from member schools,
approves the NCAA budget, including revenues, expenses and any
allocation of reserves.
Approximately 60 percent, or $527 million, of NCAA revenue is
distributed directly to the Division I membership each year. These
funds are distributed for various purposes: supporting student-
athletes, including leadership programs and grants promoting student-
athlete well-being; enhancement of academic opportunities; and direct
benefits to student-athletes with emergent or essential financial
needs.
The next-largest expenditure, representing approximately 18 percent
of NCAA revenues, allows the Association to conduct 89 championships in
23 sports across all three divisions. In addition to conducting
championships, approximately 17 percent of the budget is set aside to
allow for other fundamental services required by the membership, such
as the facilitation of governance, legislation, promotion of student-
athlete well-being and conducting enforcement. The smallest portion of
expenditures is administration costs, which represents less than 5
percent of NCAA annual revenues.
It is important to note that the NCAA is not a recipient of any
revenues generated by member schools or conferences during the regular
season or from the FBS postseason bowl games.
Division I Structure and Governance
The issue of how Division I is structured and governed is so
``inside baseball'' that, at first, it might seem irrelevant to this
hearing. But as I have noted throughout this testimony, it is critical
to how and which decisions are made. The range of institutions in
Division I extends from flagship state universities with $3 billion to
$4 billion institutional budgets and athletics budgets exceeding $150
million to small universities with budgets of less than $100 million
and athletics operating budgets of $5 million. And while most small
universities find it impossible to compete with large state
universities for research grants, faculty and even students, they have
an interest in competing athletically and depend on NCAA membership-
adopted rules to find some level of fair competition. It is a big-tent
approach that exists only for these institutions in the realm of
athletics. The question facing the Division I membership and its
leaders is twofold: If the right governance structure is in place, how
will it facilitate consensus on keeping the tent open for all while
allowing radically different segments to govern themselves based on
their characteristics? Inside baseball or not, this issue is enormously
important to the 133 institutions in the states represented on this
committee and all those in Division I. And although we cannot wait for
the resolution of this issue before addressing the others I've noted in
this testimony, some of those issues may not be fully addressed until
the structure and governance concern is worked out.
Central to the Division I governance reform expected in August 2014
are plans to ensure that all 346 Division I members continue to compete
together in the same division. One element of this design is for the 65
institutions in the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and
Southeastern conferences to act as an autonomous unit that can modify
certain NCAA rules. Some examples of autonomy might, for example,
permit the grant in aid to cover all education-related cost for their
student-athletes or otherwise provide additional athletics-related
benefits. An example of the latter could be legislation allowing
institutions within these conferences to cover the full cost of
attendance, as reported to the U.S. Department of Education, as part of
student-athletes' scholarships. After the five conferences have acted
on legislation as an autonomous unit, the intent is that remaining
schools in the division would be free to follow suit at each school's
discretion.
Concluding Thoughts
I recently testified in a U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA student
athlete Ed O'Bannon. My testimony made clear the vital need for the
continuation of a collegiate model of amateur athletics in America and
an equal need to reform our rules to make the experience even better
for the student-athletes and our fans. As I did in that trial, I have
tried here in my comments to provide as full a vetting as possible to
the issues confronting intercollegiate athletics. Most of these issues
are complex and challenging. Some view the NCAA solely through the lens
of these remaining challenges and suggest that now is the time to
separate sports from higher education once and for all. In truth,
intercollegiate athletics is serving most student-athletes very well,
and the integration of academics and athletics is essential to the
collegiate model of sport.
Yes, changes are needed, and they require frank and open
conversation. Both the Division I Board of Directors and I are often
frustrated at the lack of consensus and the slow speed at which
progress is made. Even when we have pressed for an accelerated
decision-making approach for only a handful of issues, as we did three
years ago with broad support from presidents of member colleges and
universities, some very good recommendations failed to gain support
because of the speed at which they were pushed. But too many
educational opportunities exist for nearly a half-million student-
athletes each year to stop searching for solutions.
I believe the model that has served this country and our young
people can and should evolve to meet their needs into the future. And I
remain committed to work with each of you to make sure we can do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to taking your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Emmert.
I will start, Senator Thune will follow, and then Senator
Coats. And then, we'll proceed from there.
According to your website, and I'm just sort of going back
to some basic stuff, ``student-athlete health, safety, and
well-being remain our top priorities.'' Yet, in court papers
filed for a lawsuit in which a family has sued the NCAA after
their son died from a brain injury suffered in a pre-season
football practice, the NCAA asserted that ``The NCAA denies
that it has a legal duty to protect student-athletes.''
I find that extraordinary. Now, I know what your answer is
going to be and that's going to upset me. But, the question is
how do you reconcile your website's publicly stated priorities
of promoting health and safety with your private legal
arguments which you will declare somehow are different; that
the NCAA doesn't have a legal duty to protect student-athletes?
You either do or you don't.
Dr. Emmert. I will not quibble about the language. I think
that was, at the very least, a terrible choice of words created
by legal counsel to make a legal argument. I am not a lawyer. I
am not going to defend or deny what a lawyer wrote in a
lawsuit. I will unequivocally state we have a clear, moral
obligation to make sure that we do everything we can to support
and protect student-athletes.
The Chairman. See, what I perceive is a web of convenient
protection to all parties. You suggested that there are a
number of universities. See, what I really want to see is a
panel of subpoenaed university presidents from land-grant,
publicly funded universities up here. And I think it'll come to
that because I think it's going to have to. I don't know how
we're going to work anything out without it.
But you say that was bad language by a lawyer who got
confused or, put later, didn't have a good night's rest, or
whatever it was. And so, you sort of slosh over that.
Earlier, you said that there are a number of universities
that want to make a certain number of changes, which you then
enumerated three or four of them. But then, you've also said,
frequently in answers to questions in other fora, that you
don't have the authority to do anything. You don't have a vote,
which you said here. Everything is in the hands of the
universities.
My cynical self says that universities like things exactly
the way they are, because they're making a ton of money. In
fact, they are making so much money and they have more money
than they ever had before--not all, but some. There have been
about 120 that make most of it--120 universities. I don't know
how change is possible.
How do you make the case for saying that you can be a
participant in this process of bringing about change when you
say that they don't have to listen to anything you say?
Dr. Emmert. Well, I can tell you, Senator, what is going on
right now. In less than a month now, the Division I Board will
vote on a completely changed decisionmaking structure. They
will put all of the subjects that we're describing and
discussing here today in the hands of the 65 universities that
have the largest revenue. The schools that are within the
five----
The Chairman. I'm sorry. I've got to interrupt.
Why would you pick the 65 schools that make the most money?
Because, to me, they would be the ones who would be the least
likely to want to make any changes at all.
Dr. Emmert. Because, quite the contrary, they're the ones
that precisely want to make changes; often changes that have
price tags associated with them. And they want to make those
changes and are often blocked from doing so by institutions
that have less revenue. So if, for example, you want to move
toward a scholarship model that covers full cost of attendance,
something that the Division I Board, in my first year on the
job, twice passed. It was overridden by the membership of the
350 schools in Division I, predominantly with the support of
the 65 major schools saying this is something we really need
and they were blocked from doing so by the other institutions.
So those schools are, indeed, the schools whose interests
are the points that I just enumerated. Indeed, I was
practically quoting from a letter signed by all the presidents
of the Pac-12 and all the presidents of the Big 10, all of whom
have said ``These are the changes we must make in
intercollegiate athletics and we need authority to make those
kinds of changes.''
The Chairman. Now, is this the 65 largest universities or
are these also the smaller ones who you say block progress
because it's----
Dr. Emmert. Yes, sir.
The Chairman.--expensive?
Dr. Emmert. These are the 65 schools that are members of
the five largest revenue conferences: the SEC, the Big 12, the
Big 10, the Pac-12 and the ACC.
The Chairman. Would you agree with me, in my final first
round question, that college sports has long forgotten the word
``amateurism''? And I'm talking particularly about the 120
major--but you know there's a lot more than that. That it's
just a business and the more money you could make--I mean, West
Virginia University signed onto the Big 12, which guarantees
one thing and one thing only. And that means that most of the
people of West Virginia who are not high income, or even
moderate income, cannot go to any games out in the Southwest.
Though, West Virginia University sure makes a ton of money from
them.
How do you respond to that? Is that right? Is that fair? Is
that progressive?
Dr. Emmert. If I may, Senator, there are two questions that
are being asked there. The first is do I believe that the 120
or so dominant schools, the FBS schools, perhaps to whom you're
referring, have abandoned the concept of amateurism? And I
would say that, no, they have not.
I certainly agree with you that the topline revenue, the
expenditures that are going on right now, in college athletics
have unequivocally moved up very sharply in the past two
decades. The fact that schools are investing those dollars back
into their athletic programs makes quite clear that the
universities, themselves, are not doing this to ``turn a
profit.'' Indeed, last year, out of the 1,100 participating
schools, about 23 in all of America had positive cash-flow. In
other words, they invested all of the money that they had in
college sports and had some left over. Everyone else in the
country put resources into college sports instead of taking
them out.
In terms of the changes that occurred in the construction
of the conferences over the past handful of years, I probably
agree with you. I was very disappointed in the changes that
conferences sought to make progress in. They created some
significant travel challenges, I believe, not just for the fans
but also for the student athletes. When you have to go across
the country for a football game, it's one thing because that
only occurs occasionally. But when it's your volleyball team,
your basketball team, or your soccer team, it means student-
athletes are traveling a great deal at great expense both in
time and energy and commitment. So I was quite disappointed in
not all but many of those changes that occurred.
The Chairman. I thank you and I turn to Ranking Member
Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Emmert, under your presidency, you indicated that
you've taken the initiative to form some of these Division I
subcommittees to address needed changes. And I'm wondering if
you could discuss what you hope to accomplish with that
initiative?
Mr. Emmert. Thank you, Senator.
First of all, as I mentioned, within a month we'll see, I
hope, the Board pass a completely new decision making structure
because of the challenges of the past 24 months of making
decisions around a very aggressive reform agenda. The
leadership of the 65 leading universities have said, ``We
simply have to find a better way to make progress.''
They have identified, as their agenda, many of the items
that I just addressed and a handful of others. So there is a
very keen interest in finding, first of all, ways to provide
greater support for student-athletes. We passed, twice over the
past 36 months, a proposal to allow universities to give
student-athletes, as a bare minimum, an additional $2,000 in
their scholarship to cover all their miscellaneous expenses. I
believe that the universities, this fall, and no later than
January, will approve a proposal to do something just like that
yet again. And, I hope, an even more robust model to cover the
real legitimate costs of being a student-athlete.
We were able to pass changes that allowed, but didn't
require, multi-year scholarships for a student-athletes prior
to 3 years ago. The universities were literally forbidden by
NCAA rules from providing multi-year scholarships. We were able
to get a change in the rules to allow them and I think we're
well on our way toward mandating that they be, in fact,
multiple-year commitments so that student-athletes don't have
to worry about whether or not they're going to be able to
finish their degree on time. I think that is extremely likely
to happen.
As I mentioned also, there's a very strong interest in this
same group of leading universities that cover fully the cost of
insurance programs. The vast majority of universities cover all
of those costs today but it shouldn't be a question. It should
be quite clear that no student-athlete will ever have to cover
costs of insurance or injuries they sustained when they are
student-athletes.
And I think, finally, we've got to address this issue of
time. The demands that are placed on student-athletes right now
are, in my eyes, and I think in the eyes of many, including, I
suspect, Mr. Bradshaw, the demands that are being placed on
young men and women; both in terms of what's required of them
for regular coaching, what's required from informal coaching,
what's required simply to be competitive these days, is far too
great a time, a demand, and we need to find better ways--I
completely agree with Mr. Ramsay, for example.
We need to find ways that young men and women can take
advantage of internships, of study abroad opportunities, of all
the things that we know help prepare them for life because a
very, very tiny fraction of them are ever going to play a
professional sport. For virtually all of college players, their
last game is their last game in college. That's not going to be
their profession. Their professional life and their life in
general is going to be changed by having a meaningful degree
and meaningful experiences that go along with that. That means
we've got to create opportunities for them to do the many
things that are available on campuses.
Senator Thune. Thanks.
Mr. Bradshaw, you bring a unique perspective as a former
athletic director, on the role of member institutions in taking
care of the well-being of student-athletes. I'm told that it
was your practice, while at Temple, to conduct exit interviews
of student athletes in order to understand their individual
experiences and to direct suggestions on how the program could
be improved. Are those examples from those interviews that you
can share with us that led to direct improvements in the way
that Temple addressed the needs of student-athletes?
Mr. Bradshaw. We gathered our best information from our
student-athletes about how they were being treated. As many of
you might know, student-athletes aren't the most shy people in
the world. They--absolutely. They're like my teenagers. They
let you know when they're hungry, they let you know when you
need things. So the exit interviews were invaluable because
seniors were leaving the institution.
We'd also follow up. We had questionnaires that we sent the
seniors a month before they left and then went over those
questionnaires with the student-athletes, talked about every
facet of their experience at the university. That was helpful.
We also had a captain's council, which was an aggregate of
all the captains from every team that got together without the
coaches, just myself and some administrators, to hear
everything they had to say about their experience so that we
could use that in recruiting and help to do a lot better job.
We also have team meetings with each of the teams before
their seasons to welcome the freshman and also to gather input
from those freshmen about it. And we were able to gather very
valuable things. Like, we had one team who their practice
facility was maybe about 25 minutes from campus and when they
got back in the evening, they weren't able to get the kind of
quality dinner because a lot of the students had already been
in there and things were picked over. And we were able to
extend that time for their meals for an hour so that those
student-athletes could eat.
We also had football players who were practicing in the
afternoon, some of them in pre-med. And some of the courses
they were taking were right up against their practice. We were
able to get that football coach to take those practices in the
morning when 97 percent of the classes that the kids were
taking were there. So that was very valuable input right from
the center of our universe, the student-athletes.
Senator Thune. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but from
the athletic director's standpoint, what role do you see the AD
and the universities playing? Some of these things you can go
above and beyond what the NCAA requires; correct?
Mr. Bradshaw. Yes.
Senator Thune. There is a lot of flexibility that's allowed
at the member institutions to make decisions that are in the
best interests of their student-athletes.
Mr. Bradshaw. And we should.
We have the responsibility and its institutional control.
It's not only the Chairman of the Board or Trustees but the
President and Athletic Director should all be onboard and have
similar philosophies and missions and principles about how that
works. And in concert with all those people because sometimes
you need funds to do the things that you need to do and you
need support from the Board and the President.
So it's very important that all of us work together to do
that because we're out recruiting other student-athletes and
that's a brand we call ``Athletics, the front porch of the
university.'' It might not be the most important thing you see
when you drive by but it's the most visible messenger of the
brand of the university.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN COATS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Dr. Emmert, thank you for being willing to testify here. I
know you didn't have to do this and I think it's been very
constructive to hear the reforms that you have initiated and
those that you hope to initiate. And it sounds like there are
some real positive things that are happening relative to the
issues that, as you have acknowledged, are challenges for the
NCAA, and challenges for the universities and challenges for
our Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for following through on
your commitment to me and to others that, you know, we're going
to have a good, solid, non-theatrical investigation and
committee process here. Because, I think we're all on the same
page in terms of how can we best preserve the student-athlete
and best provide for them. How do we address some of the
challenges that we're facing today with the revenues and so
forth. And I think this is a very constructive effort that
we're undertaking here. And I thank you for pulling all that
together.
Here's what I'm hearing and I'm leading to a question here.
But, I'm hearing from our witnesses that there are many
positive things happening and many positive results coming from
being a student-athlete. Opportunities are available to many
athletes that otherwise would not have been able to get a
college experience and a college degree in the education
process.
The list of reforms that Dr. Emmert has basically said
these are his proposals, and I think it goes right to what we
are trying to accomplish here: Scholarship for life; the full
and actual cost of attendance payment; leading and taking the
lead in areas of health and safety; addressing the sexual
assault issue which goes across all aspects of the college
experience, it's not limited to just athletics; medical
insurance, dealing with those questions; academic priorities,
we talked about the time issue; and support for Title IX.
I mean, it has been remarkable what has happened under
Title IX in terms of the number of women that are able to
participate in athletics, games, scholarships. Many of those
also would not have perhaps had a chance with scholarship help
and support. The vast majority of schools that, whether
Division II or Division III or not in the top 65, and that
offer all these opportunities. It's something we want to
preserve, it's something we want to improve.
I think we have a President of the NCAA who is a reformer,
who is known for that. That's why he was hired. He has taken
steps already, and willing to take significant steps forward.
Now, obviously, it goes to this question, Dr. Emmert, of
the 65 largest schools. I was encouraged about your response to
the Chairman's question relative to their interest in
addressing these issues. Now, it's one thing to say that they
are willing to do it, it's another thing to do it. So we wish
you success but we understand that it's--you're the proposer.
You're the initiator but they're the decision makers.
And so, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that over some period of
time, hopefully relatively soon, we can get a positive result
from that effort. Because, I think that's really where these
major issues fall.
But Dr. Emmert, would you just give us one more shot at the
ability to address what I think goes to the root of the
problem, but also to the root of the solution. And that is that
the top 65 schools, which are the revenue generators, we don't
want to jeopardize the other 1,000 or so that aren't, and put
them in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill Title
IX or they won't be able to fulfill the level of sports that
get so many young people the opportunities to participate and
get a college education at the same time.
Dr. Emmert. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Senator Coats. I think
you're asking one of the, well, two of the most important
questions.
And first, is a recognition that 100 years ago when the
NCAA was created it was, as Mr. Branch pointed out, created
with some impetus from the White House and Congress because of
all the challenges in college sports. And at that time, it was
determined that college sports should be appropriately self-
governed; that the universities themselves were capable of
providing the right kind of structure and governance and
oversight to make college sports work effectively for young men
and young women. And we're at a point now where we're going to
see, yet again, whether or not that self-governance system
still works. I have confidence because I know most of these
presidents as colleagues and I know their interests and their
considerations and concerns and that provides a mood of
confidence that they want to move forward on the agendas that I
described, plus more, in the coming weeks and months.
Now, I think, Mr. Chairman, this hearing is a useful cattle
prod, if you will, to make sure that everyone understands that
the world is watching. The U.S. Senate is watching and everyone
is paying attention to what universities are going to do to
address these very real and significant issues. I think all of
those things, combined, give me some very positive belief that
we're going to wind up in the right place in a matter of
months. Now, if we're not, then we have another conversation,
I'm sure. And I have no doubt, sir, that you or your successors
will make sure that we have that conversation. But I have no
concerns about this body or any other trying to hold
universities accountable for the things that they need to, and
should be, doing.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to note for the
record that Senator Coats, out in the hallway, found out he
just had his tenth grandchild.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Just for the record.
Senator McCaskill. And I heard he cried----
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, I didn't tell her that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coats. I had to leave. I cried----
Senator McCaskill. We love that.
Senator Coats. It's as meaningful as number one.
The Chairman. You don't get to meet, you know, some kind of
a----
Senator McCaskill. A guy who cries over his grandchildren
is very cool.
Senator Klobchar. We like that.
Senator Coats. That's a good thing.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Coats. I agree.
The Chairman. It's another form of cartel.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Heller, to be followed by----
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this
doesn't get you in trouble also, calling on me next. But I have
a couple things for the record.
First, I'd like to submit an opening statement. Your staff
has that.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The opening statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Senator from Nevada
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller.
I appreciate the hearing today on the welfare of student athletes.
It is important to have a better understanding of the academic and
athletic benefits that are acceptable and unacceptable for schools to
offer to student athletes and whether the NCAA can handle the
responsibility entrusted to it by the Presidents of the participating
Universities to fairly enforce that standard.
I am a sports fan. Have been my whole life. I have always enjoyed
college sports because it was about the school on the front of the
jersey and not the name on the back.
I strongly believe that for many student athletes, the
accessibility and affordability of a world class education at a 4 year
University that a scholarship offers is life changing.
In fact, on the whole, I believe many student athletes would say
they have had a good experience.
Most people see their sports careers end at high school, these
talented students get to continue to compete on next level in many
sports that actually cost the University to compete.
So there is no doubt that the opportunity to gain access to a World
Class University because of your athletic talent is a ticket to a
better future and as we discuss this issue today, I want the Committee
to remember that.
Now, with that being said;
Billions of dollars are coming in from television contracts for
college football and basketball. College sports fans are more invested
than ever in the outcome of their alma mater or adopted team. Millions
of dollars from merchandise, tickets, and even video games have turned
an amateur sports performance into a lucrative money making machine for
some Universities.
These developments have ignited a debate amongst many sports fans
watching in their homes, at a friend's house, or in person. With so
much money coming in to the Universities' coffers, should more be
allowable for the student-athletes, some of whom are the reason money
is flooding in, in the first place?
Can this be done while still ensuring amateur competition is a fair
playing field. If one school was allowed to offer lucrative packages
for student athletes or their parents such as, money or a vacation or a
home, I think it would be unfair to the schools that could not or would
not offer that.
Schools offering more incentives would attract more talent and
would theoretically, win more often. Those wins would translate into
more money for that University. Either from a larger fan following,
larger payouts from big games or higher numbers of applicants who want
to study at a school with a winning sports program and larger exposure.
Given that logic the University Presidents (who run the NCAA)
should espouse a belief that there must be some level of fairness, that
college athletics is not professional sports and there must be
restrictions on what every student athlete can receive from the school
they attend and from the community they live in.
But that is not to say there are not additional benefits both in
academic and athletic support. For example, athletes at many
Universities have access to tutors who will provide individual time
with an athlete that many in the general student body do not have
access to. Athletes also have access to weight rooms, world-class
athletic facilities that can be incredibly state of the art, and
outfitted with training staff.
These benefits help the student athlete in the classroom.
But, many of these benefits also enhance a student athlete's
performance so they can be best prepared to represent their school on
the playing field, so that they can better perform for the University
to generate additional revenue.
So we aren't debating whether student athletes get additional
benefits. They do.
But what we are seeing is that in the case of some athletes, the
NCAA raises the bar of what is ok and lowers the bar in others.
Sometimes the NCAA completely misses the mark.
Colgate freshman Nathan Harries was denied a year of eligibility
for playing three games in an unsanctioned church league. Harries spent
two years on a Mormon mission in Raleigh, NC. Upon his return home, he
played three games in a league at Dunwoody Baptist Church. Apparently,
that violated an NCAA rule that stipulates that athletes who do not
enroll immediately after graduating from high school will be penalized
one year of eligibility for every academic year they participate in
organized competition (which includes an official score and referees).
Colgate asked for a waiver, which was denied, and appealed the
decision.
Steven Rhodes served his country for 5 years as a United States
Marine. Post-service, the 24-year-old enrolled at Middle Tennessee
University and joined the football team as a walk-on. The NCAA decided
that Steven wasn't eligible to play the 2013 season because he
participated in a military-only recreational league in 2012. Even
though it was a loosely-run league that sometimes went six weeks
between games, the NCAA said that because the teams kept score and
there were uniforms and referees, the league counts as ``organized
competition.''
On April 7 of this year, Shabazz Napier went on national television
and declared that some nights he goes hungry because he is not able to
eat. He was the star of March Madness which CBS paid 681 million to
broadcast.
Every one of these situations were later revisited and fixed in one
way or another.
In November 2013, a subcommittee was scheduled to hear the appeal
from Colgate, but an NCAA official contacted the school Thursday after
various media reports detailing Harries' case. The NCAA conducted a
brief interview with Harries and immediately called back with news it
had reversed its decision.
In August 2013, the NCAA reversed its decision on Steven Rhodes,
immediately granting permission to Rhodes to play and maintaining his
eligibility for 5 years.
On April 15, in response to Mr. Napier, the NCAA announced athletes
can now get unlimited meals from their universities.
I am happy these issues were resolved but I hope it is understood
that when you get it wrong so often you lose credibility.
When the NCAA losses credibility, student athletes are at risk and
if these athletes are at risk, why keep the NCAA around at all.
This leads me to my point, the University Presidents run the NCAA.
The NCAA cannot do much without their approval. Why not push this back
onto the individual Presidents of each University? Why can't they
ensure that a student athlete is getting the education they were
promised and the integrity of the game they are playing is be preserved
so that all schools have a fair shot at competing.
Mr. Emmert, go to your board and demand change.
Tell them that the inability to adapt to the challenges of billion
dollar TV contracts, academic fraud charges and additional publicity on
every sanction decision the NCAA makes is why you find yourself before
us today asking you whether the NCAA can do its job of protecting the
welfare of the student-athlete.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heller. And second, also for the record, as a USC
alum who spoke with Pat Haden just before this hearing, I'm
pretty sure that we usually watch the Trojans beat Notre Dame
on NBC or ABC and not on ESPN.
Sorry, Mr. Branch.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller. No, that's Stanford. I wish I could say
that.
Having said that to you, Dr. Emmert, I have a couple
questions. The points that you brought up on what you are
trying to achieve I think are more weaknesses today than they
are strengths. If you have to talk about students having
scholarships for life, today you don't have them, and I think
that's a weakness. If you have to talk about men and women,
having full and actual coverage of their costs while they're in
college, it's a weakness because it's something that you don't
have today. If you're talking about leading in the area of
safety, you're not doing it today. If the NCAA is talking about
taking the lead in sexual assault, then they are not doing it
today. If you're talking about gaps in insurance coverage, it
means it's not happening today. We can go on and on. Managing
time and demands on these men and women that are in school,
means it is not happening today.
And I'll share with you, every once in a while the Chairman
and I agree on something. I call that lightening in a bottle.
The Chairman. Careful.
Senator Heller. Maybe the stars are aligning. I'm not sure
on this one. Needless to say, I agree with him. And that is
that we do have jurisdiction here, in this Congress, over the
NCAA.
So, my question to you is this: if tomorrow there was a
bill in front of the U.S. Senate that would disband the NCAA,
for all their discussions in hearings and witnesses that spoke
today, give me reasons why I shouldn't vote for that bill.
Dr. Emmert. Well, I am happy to.
The fact is that, first of all, we've been focused already
in this brief period of time on the things that aren't
happening. But the reality also is that an enormous amount of
very, very good things are happening----
Senator Heller. Good. I want hear those.
Dr. Emmert.--that we have talked about. So when we focus on
the issues of college sports, the vast majority of them, as
many of you have noted, the vast majority of those issues are
really focused on men's basketball and football as it's played
in the top handful of institutions. If you look at BCS football
and men's basketball, you are looking at less than 5 percent of
all of intercollegiate athletics. You're missing 95 percent of
intercollegiate athletics. For that other 95 percent, there are
very few of those challenges or problems that are occurring.
Indeed, it is serving.
I'm not very good at math in my head, but if it's 95
percent of 460,000 students, let's just say it's 450,000
students or 425,000 students for whom this is working amazingly
well. They are graduating at a higher rate than the rest of the
student body on their campuses, they're graduating at a higher
rate than the rest of the students in the United States. Yes,
we can in fact have a very good learning discussion about how
we measure graduation rates. But if you use the Federal
graduation rate, student-athletes in Division I graduated 1
percent higher than non-athletes on all of our campuses across
America.
If you look at men's and women's basketball, if you look at
football, the graduation rates, as Mr. Bradshaw pointed out,
have been steadily growing for more than 15 years now; each and
every year. If you look at African-American men, the African-
American men on any given campus, have a 9 percent higher
probability of graduating if they happen to be an athlete than
if they're not an athlete.
The fact is student-athletes make very good students. Yes,
there are many issues, and our two former athletes here, I
think, have pointed out very nicely the issues that need to be
addressed. But, for the vast majority of students, being an
athlete also goes along with being a better student and more
likely to graduate. And also, we believe, though the data is
not well done, and I just learned from Dr. Southall that he's
working on a study that I think will be very useful, we believe
that there's good reason to believe that they are more
successful in life as well, overall.
So one of the things that we all need to work on together
is to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater here. Intercollegiate athletics, as you pointed out,
Mr. Rockefeller, is a wonderful part of our society and
provides extraordinary opportunities for the vast majority of
student-athletes. I focused my comments on the things that I'd
like to see fixed. You just elaborated on them. That should not
be interpreted as everything is wrong in college sports.
Indeed, even if you look at scholarships, in fact, no one is
giving a guaranteed four, no one. Most schools are not giving
guaranteed 4-year commitments. But, USC has just committed to
do that. University of Indiana has just committed to do that. A
handful of others are looking at it right now----
Senator Heller. But wasn't that----
Dr. Emmert.--but the reality is is that almost no student
ever loses his or her scholarship.
Senator Heller. But wasn't that prohibited by the NCAA?
Dr. Emmert. It was.
Senator Heller. When did that change?
Dr. Emmert. That's one of the things that I think will
occur in the coming months.
Senator Heller. In other words, schools did offer four-year
scholarships until the NCAA prohibited it.
Dr. Emmert. They did and I have no idea why that was put
into the rules. I have my own notions, but I have no idea--I
don't even know when that occurred but a number of years ago.
Bill, do you know when that occurred?
Mr. Southall. 1974.
Dr. Emmert. 1974
Mr. Bradshaw. 1973.
Dr. Emmert. 1973.
Senator Heller. And no reason as to why?
Dr. Emmert. Bill, do you know why?
Mr. Bradshaw. I really don't know, really don't know.
Dr. Emmert. None of us was in the room.
Mr. Bradshaw. In recruiting, it's not a very good idea not
to give multi-year scholarships.
Senator Booker. I trust the historian. I'd love to hear
what Taylor Branch----
Senator Heller. I would. I'd like to hear this, yes.
Mr. Branch. The historical record on that was that it was
driven by the coaches at the biggest universities, precisely
the 65 biggest schools, because they wanted more control over
their athletes; they're driven to win. You have a better chance
of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up
and how much time he spends in the weight room, and so on and
so forth. And if you can yank their scholarship, then you got
more control over them.
Senator Coats. But you can't do that anymore; right?
Senator McCaskill. Yes, you can.
Mr. Branch. Yes, you can.
Senator Coats. You can't control the time----
Mr. Branch. The NCAA, in 1973, at the behest of the big
school athletic departments and coaches put in a rule that you
could not offer more than a 1-year scholarship. In other words,
guaranteeing the coaches that control over the athletes. And
that survived for 40 years. Now, what they're trying to do is
to repeal that law so that you could, at your option, offer
more.
Dr. Emmert. Excuse me, for interrupting. It has, in fact,
been repealed. It's one of the first things that I insisted on.
Mr. Branch. But it lasted for 40 years at the behest of the
same 65 schools that are now proposing to do these reforms that
you're talking about. And I think they're good, but it's
because they can afford them and because the gap between the
level of money involved and the needs of these athletes has
gone so obscene that they want to do it on their own and they
can afford to do it.
Senator Booker. If Senator Heller would allow me because
this is such an important point. It has not changed. A coach,
at any time, can revoke a student-athlete's scholarship so that
that student is no longer able to stay at a university.
Dr. Emmert, that's true right now; right?
Dr. Emmert. It's variable.
So, starting last year, schools--two years ago. Pardon me.
Schools were provided the option. In other words, the
prohibition was repealed so that a school today can offer a
multi-year scholarship, and many do.
As I just mentioned, the University of Southern California
and Indiana, for example, have recently announced that that is
precisely what they are going to do is offer full 4-year
scholarships. Many schools in the Big 10 have been doing so
since this prohibition was lifted. I don't know the extent to
which it----
Senator Booker. But it is not uniform?
Dr. Emmert. But it is most certainly not uniform----
Senator Booker. And it's not even the majority of schools.
Dr. Emmert. I believe that it's not----
The Chairman. Senator Booker----
Dr. Emmert.--not close to the majority.
The Chairman.--your turn will come.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. Do we need to remind him that he is
junior on this committee?
[Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. I think somehow he forgot about this
thing.
The Chairman. And now we're calling on Senator McCaskill.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
I would like to offer into the record the roll call of the
institutions who voted to reestablish the one-year rule. After
it was voted in, in 2011, that you could have the option of
giving a four-year scholarship, the very next meeting there was
an attempt to overrule that decision. They needed a two-thirds
vote to overrule the decision to go back to the one-year
requirement. I think it would be very interesting for the
members of this committee to look at the institutions that
voted to go back to a one-year requirement in 2012. They need
62 and a half percent. They got 62.12 to go back to the one-
year. And I think you'll be surprised. It's counterintuitive.
Some of the institutions that voted to go back to the one-year,
like Harvard voted to go back to one-year; Yale was strong,
they abstained. We had institutions like Texas, all wanted to
go back to one-year, but then there were smaller schools that
wanted to go back to one year.
Senator Thune. What did Missouri do?
Senator McCaskill. One Missouri school did, but the
University of Missouri did not. And I was willing to offer this
into the record and I was nervous when I got this because I was
afraid that my university might have voted to go back to one-
year. But it's very telling that in 2012--Now I guess my
question to you, Dr. Emmert, is why wasn't this made public at
the time? Because, I think most of these universities would be
embarrassed if they were publicly called out that they were
unwilling to give a four-year scholarship to an athlete. So why
did it take a request from Congress for this roll call for this
to ever reach the light of day? And I would ask this list to
made part of the public record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Emmert. Well, the data was made available to all of the
memberships. So----
Senator McCaskill. I'm talking about to the public. Why
didn't you put it on your website?
Dr. Emmert. I'm not debating the fact. I just don't simply
know whether it was not put on the website. The debate was very
public. It was, obviously, a very disputed case. It's a very
interesting debate. I was quite stunned by some of the
argumentation.
So we have the--and one of the things I didn't mention are
about changes that I anticipate in the coming weeks. Mr. Branch
pointed out something that's part of the Olympic movement,
Olympic tradition now, that, in the United States, Olympic
athletes have to have a substantial vote and voice in all of
the deliberations of the Olympic bodies. I certainly advocate
for a model much like that and, indeed, the proposal that's
going to be voted on later, in August, will include a full
representation of students as voting members alongside the
presidents and athletic directors on all of the legislative
bodies.
But, we currently do have student-athlete advisory
committees that we turn to on all of these issues----
Senator McCaskill. Dr. Emmert, that's all great.
Dr. Emmert. No, but if I might, ma'am. The student-athlete
advisory committee advised against putting in multi-year
scholarships because they happened to agree with coaches that
it was a good incentive for their colleagues to remain engaged.
So some universities voted to overturn this because their very
own student-athlete advisory committee said, ``No, no, no, no,
don't give multi-year scholarships. We like 1-year
scholarships.''
My point is simply, ma'am, it was quite counterintuitive on
many levels. And I was quite appalled by----
Senator McCaskill. OK. Fair enough.
I would like to talk to those students because I think they
probably felt pressure from coaches if they were all student-
athletes. I have a hard time imagining that any student thinks
it's in their best interest to get a 1-year scholarship rather
than a 4-year scholarship.
I'd like to get to handling rape accusations.
Dr. Emmert. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. In one of the responses to one of the
letters I sent you, you indicated that you provide an online
Title IX legal and best practices material and video classes.
My question is: In that material, do you make the
recommendation to your institutions that they not be allowed to
handle the adjudication of Title IX complaints involving sexual
assault against student-athletes?
Dr. Emmert. I don't know the answer to that.
Senator McCaskill. Well, we've done a survey and the
results came out today. And I was shocked to find out 30
percent of the Division I, II, and III schools allow their
athletic departments to handle the allegations against their
athletes. Now, we have a big problem with victims being willing
to come forward.
And I assume you've read the long cover story about the
investigation that did not occur with Mr. Winston at Florida
State?
Dr. Emmert. I have.
Senator McCaskill. That there was no investigation of that
allegation. We will never know whether he was guilty or not
because nobody ever investigated it because of who he was.
If you're a victim and you know your allegation is going to
be handled by the athletic department as opposed to any other
student on campus who is handled in a different system, why in
the world would you think the process was going to be fair?
Dr. Emmert. I read your data this morning and I was equally
surprised and dismayed by that fact.
I think the concern you're raising is spot on. I think it
creates, first of all, an enormous amount of conflicts of
interest. I think it creates the kind of enormous apprehension
you're describing right now on the part of a victim. As
somebody who has spent most of his life on campus and, in
several jobs, had responsibilities for campus safety. Whenever
I was a president, I had to deal with victims and family
members of victims and people who had suffered egregious harm.
And I always found it the most difficult problem that I'd ever
wrestled with. I think this is something that needs to be
addressed. I think your data is shining a very important light
on a phenomenon that I think most of the members are going to
be very surprised to know exists.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I think that, my sense, and I have
a lot of questions about transparency of money and about
whether or not things are made public. I feel for you, because
part of me thinks you're captured by those that you're supposed
to regulate but then you're supposed to regulate those that
you're captured by. And I can't tell whether you're in charge
or whether you're a minion to them.
The notion that you can't forcefully state ``I will go
after this and I will make sure that no university allows their
athletic department to handle a sexual allegation against one
of their team members,'' you know, I don't sense that you feel
like you have any control over this situation. And if you have
no control, if you're literally a monetary pass-through, why
should you even exist?
Dr. Emmert. Well, I think the reality is that the issue
we're talking about here, I don't have a vote on and I don't
get to set those policies. I can certainly set the tone on it
and I can certainly be someone who voices a very loud opinion
and say, ``This is not right. This is inappropriate. These are
the conflicts that exist when you have a policy and a practice
like this on your campus.''
When I first took this job, the very first summit I held in
Indianapolis was a summit on sexual violence. It was a summit
that led to the creation of a working group of experts and not
college athletic folks but of experts from across the country
to create a working group and a think tank. We're going to be
issuing the results of their work this summer as a workbook and
a guide to best practices.
I'm now, thanks to your work, going to go in and make sure
that this issue is addressed in that handbook. And I'm going to
talk to the leadership at our very next meeting in August,
about the fact that this is really inappropriate and we need to
find ways to make sure that athletic departments are not the
ones who are responsible for adjudication of these issues
because of all the obvious concerns that you raise.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Dr. Emmert. I couldn't agree more.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. I'm over my time and I'll try
to come back. I hope somebody else covers the questions about
young people from families that can't afford to even travel to
see their children play in the games.
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Because, meanwhile, the universities are
making gazillion dollars off their children but their parents
can't even get a stipend to attend the game to watch their
child play. There's something wrong with that scenario. And
it's going on on college campuses across this country every
single week.
Dr. Emmert. I agree with you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to start with one of my favorite stories of
the year; was the coach, the coach, is the coach for the
University of Minnesota football team, Coach Kill, who has
epilepsy. And, as you know, Dr. Emmert, he had a number of
seizures during games, during stressful moments in games. And
the University of Minnesota president decided we're not going
to get rid of him, we're keeping him on. Our record has been a
little rocky, the Gophers. But they kept Coach Kill on. He had
to coach from a box. He couldn't coach on the field because of
his condition. And during the entire season, he coached from a
box. And I was there when we beat Nebraska with him in a box.
It was a great moment.
And it was a great story, but it does make me think, as I
hear all of this, that that kind of compassion, what was so
captivating about that story, was that it kind of defied what
had become of so many of these big sports games and the kind of
cutthroat competition and how people were treated.
And so, I think what you're hearing up here today is the
hope that these are deliverables. These are things that can
happen. When you talk about changing the sexual assault policy,
making sure the players have the healthcare insurance, making
sure that they have the time to do these internships; these
aren't like crazy hard things to do. I think they're possible
things to do.
And so, what I want more than anything, as I listen to all
this, is that we commit. And I know the Chairman will be
retired, but he will be here, I'm sure, for this. That we have
another hearing whether it's 6 months from now or a year from
now to check up on what's happening with these things. Because,
these are things that we don't have to pass a law to change,
when I listen to some of these commitments and the
possibilities.
And I wanted to go with one of the things, and that is what
we haven't talked about as much. And that is the issue of the
concussions. We've had several players, whether they are at the
high school level or at the college level. And I know Senator
Tom Udall, I've cosponsored his bill and we've had hearings on
this specific topic already. But I understand that there is
some work being done here. I know there's a lawsuit that's
going on but I wondered if you could comment, Dr. Emmert, and
then I'll ask you, Mr. Rolle, with your medical focus here;
just your opinion of it. But if you could talk about what's
being done with this issue because I think it's a very
important issue for all levels of sports.
Dr. Emmert. I think it's a critical issue and it's most
heavily identified with football, of course, but it's also the
leading cause of concussions for young women in soccer, for
example. And it occurs in virtually every sport.
There are a number of things going on. I'll be as quick as
I can. First of all, as I mentioned in my opening comments,
when I first came into the office, I was a bit surprised to
find there wasn't a chief medical officer position in the NCAA.
So I created that job and we went out and we hired a wonderful
doctor, Brian Hainline, who is a neurologist. He has been
working unbelievably hard to pull together, first of all, a
best science.
One of the big problems is we don't have good science on
concussions. It is not as well understood as we all might
think. And so, once they've done that, just this past handful
of days, they released the first ever consensus among all the
medical community on the treatment and the prevention of
concussions, especially around football, and new football
practice guidelines around contact and a variety of other
things. We also signed with the Department of Defense, about 2
months ago, an agreement to do a $30 million project. We're
putting up $15 million, DOD is putting up $15 million, first of
its kind ever to track longitudinally, young men and women and
try and get a legitimate history of the occurrence of and a
treatment of concussions so that we understand it better. We're
working with all of the youth sports organizations to try and
get better practice guidelines, working with the NFL on their
Heads UP program to try and get coaches, especially in
football, coaches trying to teach young men and boys how to
tackle properly.
But we have the same issue with soccer. So there are some
soccer coaches, girls' soccer coaches, that are saying now we
need to ban any heading until girls and boys are at least 12
years of age. And so, we're looking at trying to lend our
support to those kind of efforts. We're making, pardon the pun,
headway but the facts are we need a lot better understanding of
this disorder and how we can prevent it. I'm pleased with where
we are and I'm proud.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Rolle?
Mr. Rolle. Well, part of the reason, actually, why I
stopped playing in the NFL to pursue medicine and go into a
particular specialty of neurosurgery was because a lot of my
teammates having early onset dementia or traumatic brain injury
or some of these chronic traumatic encephalopathies, things
that you often associate with several concussive episodes. I
saw it in the NFL, I saw it in college. And now, as an aspiring
neurosurgeon, I would love to add expertise to that discussion.
But I think at the collegiate level, one thing that I
noticed in the locker rooms were a lot of my teammates, a lot
of fellow athletes of mine, you know, we want to be fast;
right? We want to be quick. We want to be nimble. We want to be
agile. And so, the protective equipment that we wear, a lot of
the guys choose and select equipment that's lighter and maybe
not as protective. And so, that might lead to more concussive
episodes.
I think education, as Dr. Emmert said, is incredible
important. We do have some athletic trainers and doctors that
come and speak to us as collegiate athletes and talk to us
about the dangers of concussion, but if you are concussed as a
player, sometimes you feel pressured and forced to get back on
the field as quickly as possible. And then, if you have a risk
of getting a second concussion, you're likelihood of getting a
third and a fourth, a fifth, goes up exponentially actually.
And so, the pressures and stresses of trying to be on the
field, trying to compete, not losing your position all at the
same time, as Devon said earlier, if you're not on the field
and if the coaches can't see you, you're not exposed, then you
perhaps lose your opportunity of getting drafted high and
getting to your next level. And so, there are a lot of
different issues that go on.
I think one way to address this issue along with education
is just to, perhaps, change the culture, change the focus, of
big collision, high velocity hits in the sport of football, and
the idea that that is a part of the game. It is not a part of
the game, actually. If you look at the rulebook, it's just to
take a player to the ground, similar to how a rugby is
performed, but you see all the highlights and all the exposure
on these big, high velocity hits where guys are spearing into
another player and that's what gets highlighted, that's what
gets celebrated. And I think that's a wrong path.
And so, as I said, hopefully in a few years or so, I can
add more knowledge to this discussion. But, from my anecdotal
knowledge, it is an issue that's not only in the NFL but also
in college and even before that; high school and primary
football, as well.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Well, thank you.
And I'll ask the questions on the record about the
internships of you, Mr. Ramsay, because I just thought that was
really fascinating when you look at the numbers that Dr. Emmert
gave us on what a small proportion of the student-athletes end
up going into pro-sports. That's most likely not going to be
their career. And they have to have that ability to pursue. And
if it's supposed to be 20 hours than we have to find some way
to measure that and enforce it so that it's across-the-board.
And that's one of the things I'm very interested in hearing the
follow-up in a year. And I thank you for bringing that to our
attention.
Thank you.
And it also says to go down, as we discussed, Dr. Emmert,
yesterday, to the high school level and so that we put some of
this in perspective. And I do think there are ways to change
cultures. We've changed cultures in this country before and
still have great sports games.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Nelson, I want to say something about you.
To me, this hearing so far has been a lot of talk about a
lot of things which have been around for an awfully long time,
which we all think should be solved. But they're not solved,
and I think there are very clear reasons for it and that
decisionmaking reason is very flawed, fragile and useless.
Florida, which has--everybody recruits from Florida. They
have a law which you would know, Senator Blumenthal, that
transparency, how money is spent, has to be made public because
they have a law. And so, you know, when the contributions and
the NCAA comes in and only a small portion goes to education
and all kinds of things go to the stadium, that's all available
to the public.
And so, I commend them for coming from a state like that.
And I just think that's the path for so many answers which we
just otherwise seem to be unwilling to deal with. Excuse me.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman.
I think a lot has come out of this committee hearing that
should enable and help Dr. Emmert to continue with the reforms
that he's trying. Now, so much has been said about so many of
these issues. Let me just highlight a couple.
I happen to know because I was mesmerized with Mr. Rolle as
a player at Florida State. And for him to do his interview for
the Rhodes Scholarship, which was in the South on a Saturday,
his president, T.K. Wetherell, had to get special dispensation
so that they could get someone to donate a private jet for him
that could fly him somewhere in the Northeast when Florida
State was playing up here. And, even so, he made it only in the
second half. But, the emphasis, you know, that's something
that's so common sense that you would want a player to
interview for the Rhodes, and yet it was a big deal. And it
shouldn't have been.
The fact of so many of these players are coming from
families that are dirt poor, and they don't have the
opportunities that others do. It seems to me it's common sense.
We ought to have stipends or scholarships, whatever you want to
call it, so it equalizes the playing field of the financial
ability if those student-athletes are contributing to the
financial well-being of that university.
So, too, with health insurance. That ought to be common
sense. If a player is hurt and that's a career-ending injury,
the best of medical care ought to be given to that player. And
for it to last for some period of time in the future. And, of
course, concussions just to add another whole dimension to this
thing. I thought it was very interesting, in another committee
that I have the privilege of chairing, we did a hearing on
concussions including professional athletes, went down the line
on the table and they would not recommend to their children
that they play football.
So times are changing. And the NCAA has got to get with the
times and so, whatever this committee hearing has done to
enable you, as a reformer, to get those schools to give you the
votes that you need to do a lot of these things that we're
talking about; the family travel. Why should they have to sneak
around in the shadows in order to get money to be able to buy a
ticket to come to the game and where to stay in a hotel and so
forth? I mean, it just defies common sense.
Mr. Rolle, do you want to make any final comment?
Mr. Rolle. Sure.
One thing that I'd like to say is that when you think about
the four-year scholarship discussion and the one-year
renewable, a lot of players that I was on teams with, it kind
of felt like it was us versus them. You know, it wasn't a team.
We didn't kind of feel like the NCAA was protecting our best
interesting; was looking out for us wanting, to see us succeed
and thrive and flourish--it was almost as if we had to do
everything we could to promote ourself and to better ourself
against this big machine that was dictating and ordering the
steps that we took. And maybe that's not true. Maybe there's
some miscommunication. Maybe the information was getting
disseminated to the student-athletes on the field well enough.
But that's kind of how we felt.
And I think another thing is quite bothersome today, going
back to the economic issue and economic struggles, a lot of my
teammates, as you know Senator Nelson, I mean, come from poor
areas in Florida and they come to Florida State as the first
person in their family to be a college student. And they don't
have a lot of money to lean back on from their families. So
that leaves them open and susceptible to some unsavory things.
I mean, there are agents, NFL runners, who would come to
our dorms and knock on our doors and say, ``Hey, I can take you
out to a night club; I can buy you a meal; I can give you a
suit to wear; I can take you and your girlfriend out to eat.''
And then, these players accept it because they don't have much
else and then they become ineligible. Then they don't have any
opportunity for financial gain in the future by going to the
NFL because now, they have a black mark or they just don't play
anymore. So then, they end up back in Liberty City, Miami or
Polk County, Florida, and that typical perpetuity continues.
And it's frustrating and discouraging and I saw it often.
Senator Nelson. That is the exact example that we need to
use.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Isn't it not Senator Cory Booker in attendance today? It's
his turn to ask a question.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Finally. I apologize.
Senator Booker. No, sir. I----
The Chairman. Look, you could have run for the Senate ten
years ago.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. I don't want to be disrespectful to Senator
Blumenthal who I think was here before me, earlier.
Would you like to--no?
Senator Blumenthal. I will ask my questions now only
because I have to preside, and if you would yield for five
minutes, I would really appreciate it.
Senator Booker. I've already been put in my place once.
You're more senior than me. I will yield, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes, but you're bigger than I am. So--
--
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing, which very sincerely is, I think, a very
important one, very significant, for the future of academic
institutions. I want to thank all of the folks who have come to
enlighten us and thank you to Senator Nelson, by the way, for
having that hearing on concussions which was very enlightening.
And I want to begin by saying, for what it's worth, I think
the law here is heading in a very unfortunate direction, as Dr.
Emmert and I have discussed. I think the law is heading in the
direction of regarding athletes at universities more and more
as employees. And that is because of the growing asymmetry and
inequality of bargaining positions, financial benefit, energy,
time, sweat, blood, and injury that is involved. That is
classically the reason why labor law protections have applied
to individuals who potentially are victims of exploitations,
whether it's in garment factories or construction sites or
universities.
And so, I think the challenge here is to diminish that
asymmetry to reduce the inequality and to return truly to the
model of student-athletes, which I think many of us want to be
the prevailing model but increasingly is not so, and therefore
the laws will move to protect them as the NRB ruling reflects.
And I say that with regret because I, too, as Dr. Emmert has
articulated well, valued that student-athlete model rather than
the employee/employer model. But the more the reality is that
athletes in effect function as employees, the more the law will
recognize that fact. And my opinion is worth what you're paying
for it, I'm just a country lawyer from Connecticut. But I
sincerely believe that that's the direction of the law.
I want to first ask you, Dr. Emmert, I was absolutely
astonished and deeply troubled by the revelation that athletic
departments, on many campuses, investigate campus sexual
assaults. I'd like your commitment that you will work to change
that practice as soon as possible and as effectively as
possible.
Dr. Emmert. You have my commitment.
I obviously want to understand the data more. I simply read
a summary. I'm not sure what the facts are on those campuses
but, as I said earlier, the data that Senator McCaskill's staff
brought forward was shocking to me.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I am shocked and outraged by the
apparent practice on many campuses of, in effect, re-
victimizing survivors who may be, in effect, victims.
I want to focus for the moment on health insurance. You
know, individual colleges and the NCAA make billions of dollars
on the talents of these young men and women. And I want ask
you: Couldn't the NCAA offer health insurance for athletes for
a certain amount of time after they leave college? That seems
eminently fair and in effect making them better athletes and
better students while they're there.
So I would ask for your commitment that you will work
towards providing for health insurance for these needs and
injuries that may extend beyond their playing years on campus
or even in professional settings. And I'd like to know what
more, assuming you are committed to that cause, what more your
organization can do to encourage schools to provide this kind
of coverage for its student-athletes?
Dr. Emmert. Yes, sir.
Well, today, the coverage that exists is provided either by
the campus itself or by the student athlete's family. Depending
upon university policies that at most of the high resource
schools, they provide the insurance so that the student doesn't
have to. We need to do several things.
One, we need to make sure, in my opinion, that there aren't
co-payment requirements. If a young man or woman, especially
from a low-income family, has an injury and all of a sudden
they have a $2,000 or a $5,000 co-payment that seems grossly
inappropriate since it was a sports-related injury. Why should
they be on the hook for that? So we need to make sure that we
don't have many of those circumstances out there.
We have right now, at the NCAA level, catastrophic
insurance so that if there are long-term disability issues, if
there are injuries that require treatment over a course of a
lifetime, there is a policy in place. We have some individuals
that have been on that insurance policy for 20 or more years,
and we've taken a number of steps to make sure that that is as
strong as it could possibly be. That policy, though, doesn't
kick in until you have $90,000 worth of bills. We need to make
sure that, to your point--I'm saying yes, I guess, Senator. You
have my commitment.
Senator Blumenthal. I'm glad to hear the yes.
Dr. Emmert. There are complexities in all this we need to
work our way through. But I agree with you that----
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Dr. Emmert.--no one should have to pay for an injury that
they suffered as a student-athlete.
Senator Blumenthal. I welcome and accept your yes to both
the sexual assault and the insurance questions. And I would ask
further for your commitment that you work with us on sensible
legislation that will impose a higher level of responsibility
in both areas.
Thank you.
Dr. Emmert. Certainly.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'm grateful. You know, you and I talked
about this in my first days as United States Senator; that this
was an issue that you wanted to cover and you saw my excitement
for doing that. And a lot of that excitement stemmed from the
fact that I was, back in the 1990s, an NCAA Division I football
player.
And I want to first say, it's very important for me to say,
that I probably wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for
that experience. And I am deeply grateful. I joke all the time
that I got into Stanford University because of a 4.0 and 1,600;
4.0 yards per carry, 1,600 receiving yards in my high school
years, and had lifetime experiences frankly that I could never,
ever replace. And it opened up extraordinary doors for me.
And so, we could have a hearing that could go on for hours
if not days about all the good things that are happening with
the NCAA and athletes. And so, please forgive me if I'm not
giving that appropriate light.
But what concerns me, and what you and I have talked about,
Chairperson, for quite some time are the egregious challenges
we have.
Now, I want to just publicly thank Dr. Emmert, because he
was gracious not only to come here, which he did not have to
do, but he actually took special time to come see me as a
former NCAA athlete to sit down with me and hear my concerns.
And I was taken aback actually that you agreed with me across-
the-board. And let me reiterate those, for the record, and make
sure that we are in agreement.
So, number one, you agreed it's a big problem that athletes
don't get scholarships to get a B.A.?
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
Senator Booker. That is a big problem. We have athletes
that pour their lives 40, 50 hours a week and end up having
gone through their eligibility but don't have a B.A. That's a
problem?
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
Senator Booker. You agree it's a problem that we have
athletes, who are often very poor, coming onto college campuses
and who are restricted from working? They can't shovel
driveways for some extra spending money, can't meet the needs
of travel, can't buy toiletries, or clothing. If they're
restricted from working, banned from working, that's a problem
we have to address, right?
Dr. Emmert. But a minor correction. They're not banned from
working. They can, in fact, work and in many cases do. But the
biggest challenge is they simply haven't the time.
Senator Booker. So, in other words, they can't work because
of whatever reason. You know that's a problem; that
scholarships do not cover the full costs----
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
Senator Booker.--at the same time they're being expected,
whether by law or not, to work 40, 50, 60 hours a week?
Dr. Emmert. Completely agree.
Senator Booker. That's a problem, right?
You agree that it's a problem that health coverage is
inadequate and that we have people, many of whom I know and you
know, who have blown-out knees and, even though they've
graduated now, they're having to go in their pockets for co-
pays and the like to deal with medical injuries that were
incurred, really, the root of those injuries stemming from the
challenges they had when they were an athlete?
Dr. Emmert. Yes, I agree that the insurance today is much
better than most people think, but there are certainly areas
that need to be closed----
Senator Booker. It's inadequate and it is costing some
athletes thousands of dollars into their lifetimes.
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
Senator Booker. You agree that there's a real problem,
still, with time? That, as the two athletes at the end of the
table, I know they're not much different than me, but it's not
just the practice time.
Guys, how many hours would you show up before practice and
get your ankles taped, get treatments? An hour, two hours?
Mr. Rolle. Yes, sir.
Senator Booker. Sometimes 3 hours depending on how bad your
injury, your strain is? We have athletes now putting in upwards
of 60, 70 hours a week. That's a problem.
Dr. Emmert. Huge problem.
Senator Booker. OK.
And you agree that there is, at least, an issue that has to
be dealt with to improve the issue of sexual assault; that has
to be improved in terms of the way we investigate?
Dr. Emmert. Yes.
I think the way we educate young men and young women, and
the way we educate people on campuses to handle the issues.
Senator Booker. Right.
And this, we didn't cover so it might not be a simple yes
or no but, in terms of the due process, when a young man like
Mr. Ramsay not even knowing he could get a lawyer, not even
getting help, that there are breakdowns in process that are not
clear. Would you say that that process could be improved?
Dr. Emmert. It certainly could, especially on most
campuses. Yes.
Senator Booker. So I guess I just say to you, Mr. Chairman,
not having the time to go through more rounds and deeper
questioning, to just say, clearly, this is my problem. This was
a challenge for me when I was an athlete, some 20 years ago.
And athletes after athletes are going through and facing what I
consider the exploitation of athletes.
Let me be very clear. It is exploitation when you have an
athlete working 60, 70 hours a week, but yet still not able to
afford the basic necessities, not just having your parents fly
back and forth but being put in horrible situations where they
see their jersey with their name on it being sold making
thousands and thousands of dollars, but they can't even afford
to get the basic necessities of life. And if they try to sell
their jersey for $50, they then get penalized and lose their--
that's exploitation of an athlete.
To me, it's exploitation when you give your body--gentlemen
on the end, how many linemen today that played with you that
have gone through four, five and six surgeries for their knees?
Mr. Rolle. Many.
Senator Booker. A lot.
Mr. Ramsay. Yes.
Mr. Ramsay. Me.
Senator Booker. And if they're going into their own pocket,
after giving up their knees to make millions of dollars for the
university and then the universities aren't even compensating
them appropriately, that's an exploitation of a college
athlete. That has to be addressed.
If we have guys, like was testified by the two gentlemen on
the end, who--I know this because we spent hours. We did the
math, my teams, because so many players feel an assault on your
dignity; that you're putting 70, 80 hours a week. You're giving
up internships. You know more about your playbook. I can still
tell you: Stonebreaker, Todd Lyght, Chris Zorich. I can tell
you more about them because that's what I was studying at
night--that you spend all of that effort and then your
university is not in any way insuring that you get a degree at
the end in something like engineering or political science. But
they're not honoring the fact that sometimes, hey, when you're
working full time you can't finish your degree in four or five
years. In fact, when they can lord over you, the removal of
your scholarship, because that does still happen. Athletes are
still exploited. They blow out their knee. If they somehow
don't meet the mandates of a coach, they lose their
scholarships. They don't get their degrees.
And so, to me this is plainly and simply the dark side of
the NCAA where athletes are being exploited. This is why I love
that Taylor Branch is here. Because, occasionally, and you used
these words, Dr. Emmert, you used ``this may work as a cattle
prod to get us moving.'' This hearing may be a cattle prod. I
wrote that word down because I have seen the NCAA move quickly
when there is money and reputation on the table.
For example, you mentioned his name, Shabazz Napier. He
said on the highest exultation of victory, he said on TV what
we know athletes, what coaches know, is a truth. That some guys
don't even have the money to buy shaving cream; to eat at
night. But he said it on national TV and within 7 days, because
of the shame and embarrassment, within 7 days, if I'm correct,
the rules changed and guys could actually eat.
Dr. Emmert. Yes, though I'd like to----
Senator Booker. So hold on, because I'm already over my
time, sir.
Dr. Emmert. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Let me give you another example. Cam Newton
was going through the same problems you were at the same time.
His eligibility was being challenged, Mr. Ramsay. Cam Newton, a
guy that brings millions of dollars into a university and his
adjudication happened quickly. Yours did not. You're not a name
athlete. Your name isn't on jerseys and the like, and so it
didn't.
So what I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Chairperson, and
really why I love that Taylor Branch is here because he wrote
one of the more seminal books of my life about the Civil Rights
movement, that when there's a class of individuals who are
being exploited and there is millions and millions of dollars
being brought in and guys can't even afford healthcare, can't
afford to finish they degrees, than we have a problem. And I
respect Dr. Emmert in saying: We are going to try and address
that but where is the urgency that this has been going on
decades in America? And so, I don't trust, like the Supreme
Court when they said we're going to integrate schools. They
said do it with what? All, what kind of speed?
Mr. Branch. Deliberate.
Senator Booker. All deliberate speed.
And it took them a long time to get around to doing the
right thing by people.
Well these aren't just people, these are young people in
the United States of America. And we can't afford to wait for
all deliberate speed. There has got to be some level of
accountability for fast action on things that the head of the
NCAA says is a problem. Next season, when football season
starts, there are going to be kids suffering from the same list
of unfair things that somehow, someday will be addressed. So I
think we need another hearing with the real rulemakers, with
college presidents lined up here, to ask them how fast they are
going to address the exploitation of college athletes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Coats. Well, Mr. Chairman, could Dr. Emmert respond
to that?
The Chairman. No, I have a sacred obligation to Senator
Ayotte. She is next.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Let me just say up front on this issue of athletic
departments investigating sexual assault allegations--it is
ridiculous. You've got to get up and fix that right away.
I am a proud graduate of the Penn State University, and it
was so troubling and disappointing to see what happened at my
own university. I love the university, but the athletic
department is not where you handle these kinds of allegations,
so you've got to fix that, Dr. Emmert. Walk out this door and
fix this.
I'm troubled when I hear some of the testimony today.
Senator Blumenthal asked about the change to an employer/
employee model. We've talked about compensation potentially for
athletes today. I don't want to see any athletes mistreated. I
want them to be able to have a quality of life that's important
as they serve and get the education and be able to be an
athlete; the student-athlete model.
But, as I think about what, for example, the NLRB did in
its ruling, I know it applies to private universities allowing
unionization at Northwestern, and I think about this
compensation model, the employer/employee model. What does this
do in terms of the schools where we're not talking about the
top athletes that may go on, that are the non-revenue
generating sports? And what will that do to women's athletics?
If we start down the road of a compensation model, what
will happen in our schools in terms of the schools or the
sports that aren't at the top. You can sell the jerseys, you
can make money, but they are still very important to student
life. And when I think about Title IX and women and the
opportunities women have gotten because of Title IX, if you're
on campus and this suddenly becomes an employer/employee-type
model, what does that do for the women's sports if they're not
revenue-generating? And how do we sustain them if this model
changes?
So it's a big question but I would like you all to comment
on it because I want to make sure that our athletes are treated
well.
And certainly, Mr. Rolle, what you've done, it's really
inspiring.
And thank you, Mr. Ramsay, as well for your inspiration in
being here. But there's a whole category of athletes that
weren't quite at your level but are participating in college
sports. And it has been an opportunity for them to get an
education. And for women, as well, that are at your level but
don't generate the same amount of revenue. And I want to make
sure that women continue to have the same opportunity that
they've had because of Title IX. So if you could comment on
that, I'd appreciate it.
Dr. Southall. I would love to comment on that. I think it's
not a zero sum game. If some athletes are profit-athletes who
have a higher market value than the cost of their grant and
aid, then we should treat them differently than athletes who
are not profit athletes. It's not either/or or they must be. If
they're employees, as the NLRB found, then we should treat them
as employees. That does not mean that college athletics or
athletes in the other sports, women, or anything, it doesn't--
--
It's not an either/or.
Senator Ayotte. Can I tell you, Doctor, my university said
that if the unionization rule were applied, the University of
New Hampshire, they feel like this is actually going to
diminish the athletic program. It would diminish it for women,
and it will diminish it for non-revenue generating sports. So I
understand what you're saying but that's sort of not what I'm
hearing from some other universities.
Dr. Southall. Well, I would say that probably a university
president, by the name of Chicken Little, might have been the
first one to say that because the sky will not, in fact, fall.
By denying profit-athletes just compensation in the market,
does not preclude colleges and universities from supporting
intercollegiate athletics as an educational opportunity. If
they're employees, then they should have all the rights of
employees. Title IX does not apply in an employee setting.
Senator Ayotte. Well, I would like to see what Mr. Bradshaw
has to say about what I just said as well. Thank you.
Mr. Bradshaw. We probably don't have time, but I certainly
like to hear that model that works. I believe it's going to be
devastating to all those student-athletes including women who
don't produce revenue; who aren't seen as athletes or students
who create that revenue. I really would like to see that model
work because, as we all know, that's going to mean those who
can afford to pay for that will and those who can't won't.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Dr. Southall. Again, if I can reiterate, and I appreciate
the question. I'm trying to articulate as clearly as I can. If
the athletes are, in fact, employees then we have a moral
obligation and an obligation under the law to treat them as
such. If they're not, does not preclude them from
participating. Title IX does not have to be held hostage by
this because we're only talking about 5 percent of the
athletes.
Senator Ayotte. So, I know my time is up and I know others
have to ask questions but--so we're just going to have a
distinction. So some will be employees and some will be
student-athletes?
Dr. Southall. They already are employees.
Senator Ayotte. I don't know how that works.
Dr. Southall. They already are employees.
So by being open and honest about what we are using and
exploiting these athletes for, honesty is a very good thing.
Senator Ayotte. So as a woman athlete, if I'm not a revenue
generating athlete, then I'm not going to be eligible for this
employee/employer relationship. And so, then there's sort of a
second category of athletes on campus.
Dr. Southall. They already have that.
Senator Ayotte. That bothers me.
Dr. Southall. We refer to them as revenue-athletes right
now in revenue sports and Olympic sports. And that's fine. It
does not mean that if we compensate athletes according to the
market that everyone else has to go away. That is not what has
to occur at all.
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Dr. Southall. So if the universities find that that
opportunity is very important, they will support it. They will
support it. I see no way that women's athletics or Olympic
athletics is going to go away. It's not going to happen. It
just isn't.
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Emmert, as I listen to Kelly's questions about the cost
structure and the likely impact of creating unions, ultimately
the cost structure itself would have impact in universities and
have impact in athletic programs. I just wonder how significant
that impact would be.
And let me say this before you answer the question, you
think about your answer.
To Mr. Southall, it's good to have you here from Columbia,
South Carolina. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that at
least you're a Gamecocks fan. I like that a lot, being a South
Carolina fan myself.
I will tell you that my story is very different than Cory's
story, and you've got these Rhodes Scholars on the end who have
done very well academically. And I'm very proud to see their
success off the field as well as on the field. I will say that
my story, I think, really shows a little more about my
perspective and why I am asking the questions I'm asking about
the cost structure.
I'm a kid that grew up in a single-parent household. Had it
not been for football I would not have been able to afford to
go to college at all. I played football for just a year in
college and earned a Christian Leadership Scholarship which
took me to a different school. And I realized the
responsibilities and the burden of practice before and after
classes and the challenges that I faced, and made a decision to
go to a different route.
But the fact of the matter is, had it not been for that
scholarship opportunity, I would not be sitting here today
because I would not have had the opportunity to finish, or even
start, my education. So when I think about--now I went to a
small school, Presbyterian College--NAIA--back in the day. So
when I think about the impact of this conversation on athletes
that are not in those top tier schools, there is a significant
unintended consequence that I think we are looking at that
Kelly really brought to the surface that is hard to deny and
perhaps even harder to figure out how to fix.
Dr. Emmert. Well, I happen to agree with you.
I think that the implications of converting a student-
athlete model to an employee/employer model would utterly
transform college sports into something that doesn't begin to
look like what it looks like today. With all due respect, I
completely agree with Dr. Southall's interpretation of all of
this.
If you simply look at the definition of an employee, as has
been provided by one NLRB administrator, if a student is
receiving a scholarship and additional benefits, it amounts to
compensation. If they are working more as a student-athlete
than they are in their academic work, then they're working. If
they are subject to the oversight of a coach, then they have a
boss. I'm not a labor lawyer but that's, in summary, the
definition of a student-athlete. That would apply to virtually
every student-athlete that has a scholarship; man, woman,
doesn't matter.
You know, a woman soccer player--the difference between a
women's basketball player and a men's basketball player isn't
that the men's basketball player works harder. It isn't that
they're more or less talented. The only difference is a single
difference and that is there are more people in the stands.
That's it in terms of their time commitment, their
competitiveness, everything. The difference is one plays in
front of a lot of people and one doesn't. The difference
between a volleyball player and a soccer player is exactly the
same. The only difference is whether they're playing on TV or
whether they aren't.
Senator Scott. Yes, sir. And I want----
Dr. Emmert. So that completely----
Senator Scott. You're going to have to wrap it up a little
bit.
Dr. Emmert.--changes the relationship. As Dr. Southall
pointed out, Title IX has nothing to do with employee/employer
relationships. So Title IX would have nothing to do with any
student-athlete who is no longer a student-athlete, who is now
an employee, including a women's basketball player. It would be
an irrelevancy for college sports.
Senator Scott. Quick question for Mr. Bradshaw.
I know that you played sports a couple of years ago. I
think it's five or seven years ago, I think it was.
Mr. Bradshaw. Thank you very much.
Senator Scott. Yes, sir. I can't read my notes but I think
it says four or five years ago.
Mr. Bradshaw. There you go.
Senator Scott. Not 45.
But my question is, as you've had a lot of experience and
you've looked at this opportunity as well as the challenges
that come with the opportunity from multiple angles, what kind
of progress have you seen over the last three decades or so? As
we wrestle with some of the challenges that are going to be
future challenges, and certainly are present challenges,
sometimes we miss the progress that we've made along the way.
Mr. Bradshaw. And certainly, all of us think we can do
better. There's no question about it, and we spend most of our
time----
Senator Scott. And we should. And we should.
Mr. Bradshaw.--talking about how we can be better and not
patting ourselves on the back. But I would just say, as a
former assistant coach back in the day and head coach and
student-athlete, that it's night and day; the changes, the
quality of physicians, trainers. I mean, we didn't know what a
dietician was as student-athletes or head coach. I mean, the
changes are enormous. They're compelling.
And I think one of the things I would recommend that you
get some student-athletes to talk to, that there's a balance.
Obviously, there are outliers. There are some horrible stories
that have happened and none of us, none of those is too many
whether it's assault or date rape or whatever it might be. But
I would love to see a panel of student-athletes come in and
talk about everything; a balanced panel of that. It has been
significant and are across the line.
And I'm retired now. I can talk about it very objectively
and not be concerned about a college president or a faculty or
a board of trustees. It is really just an incredible profession
that we're in, the changes that the NCAA are trying to make.
And again, Mark has got to deal with votes, he's got to deal
with the institutions, the college presidents, the board of
trustees who pressure the college presidents. I think you've
got something when you want to bring the presidents in here. I
think that would be a good move and something that could help
everyone. But the changes that have happened, they are just,
you know, by leaps and bounds particularly even in the last
decade.
Senator Scott. Final question, Mr. Chairman? Do I have time
for a final question?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Scott. To my Gamecock fan, Dr. Southall. As you
look at the opportunity for collective bargaining and its
impact on the academic environment, realizing that most
institutions' primary objective really is to cultivate an
environment that is conducive for academic achievement. What do
you see as the potential impact of the collective bargaining
opportunity, though I have grave concerns with it personally,
on college campuses and its impact on that academic
environment? Or, do you see one?
Dr. Southall. I don't see that it would have any effect.
Senator Scott. Good enough. Good enough.
Dr. Southall. No.
Senator Scott. All right. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. OK.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coats, I know the question you want to ask and Mr.
Emmert has answered most of those questions. And I know you
feel a duty to ask the question but there isn't going to be a
second round. I'm going to make a closing statement, and then
at 5:15 we will be through this very long hearing.
I want to say this: I have two impressions. One of them is
superficial and the other, I think, is worrisome, of this
hearing. And I want each of you to either agree or not agree
with me as kind of your closing statement. That on one level,
this has been an open conversation. We've brought up all kinds
of issues and those issues have been discussed to a small
degree or a large degree. But my real feeling from this hearing
is that we haven't accomplished much, and that people have laid
down their, sort of, protective--I'm not talking about you two
gentlemen. But that there has been, sort of, a self-protection
mode either for oneself or on behalf of others.
Your point about getting the board of trustees in, that
would be kind of interesting because they do have a big
influence over college presidents.
But all I know is, coming out of this hearing, that I don't
think I've learned anything particularly new except some
anecdotes that I haven't been hearing for 50 years, which is
how long I've been in this business. And that the answers, you
know, of course there's progress. Of course there's progress on
concussions and of course there's progress in other things, but
is it in any way concomitant in an effective progress to what
we should have been doing--all of us including this committee
and this Congress--by exercising our oversight rights?
The head of the NCAA at one point said, well, one of the
things I did was to make sure that--and I forget what the
example was but it was the statement I got something done. I
don't believe that. I don't believe that.
I think that the system is rigged so that you are separated
from the possibilities of getting something done except as you
testify or, you know, you probably couldn't write articles.
You'd probably get blowback on that. But I don't think you have
the power and I think it's constructed for that purpose. I'm
cynical. I'm cynical about it.
It's too easy to have to complain in Senate hearings about,
or any other kinds of fora, what progress has been made. Of
course there's always progress that has been made but does it
keep up with what needs to be done? And the answer is
absolutely not.
And this country is now so soaked in the culture of ESPN,
plus I guess a couple of other stations, and watching football,
baseball, world's soccer, all the rest of it. I mean, my own
view is it's undermining our values. I'll tell you one thing
for sure, I think it's undermining our commitment to education.
And Dr. Southall, I think that you're talking about the
different ways of jiggering the students, who are athletes,
actually doing a better job academically than those who aren't.
It was said by the head of the NCAA that that was true. And it
was also in his testimony. I don't believe that. I just don't
believe it. Now I may be wrong, but this and then the different
formulas you use--it's very interesting to me and something I'd
like to know more about.
But to me it has been, in essence, an important hearing but
not one which points to progress, because I think everybody is
going to leave this hearing and they're going to go right back.
I'm not. I don't think Senator Booker is, and I don't think a
bunch of others are--go back to doing what they do. But we got
that one out of the way. No harm there. Nobody did themselves
any great damage. Congress doesn't usually follow through.
Congress doesn't get that much done. That happens to be true
for the last three or four years.
And then, there's always the question of getting people
from, you know, either trustees or heads of colleges and
universities from states, and then members here co-related to
that might not want to have that happen. I mean, the world
works in ways that protects itself, but this is a particular
ugly one.
The question of rape and having--I mean, I voted not to
allow the Department of Defense to settle rape questions. I
think that's ridiculous. It passed. What I didn't want to pass,
passed by a margin but it was not a great margin. So yes,
that's progress. But what we want to do is get there, and I
don't have a feeling that we're on that path.
I think this hearing symbolizes that we might be, but the
substance is that we probably won't be. React to that, anybody
who wants to then I'm going to close the hearing.
Mr. Branch, I think you had something.
Mr. Branch. Well, Senator, I think that some differences
have been, I mean, there are big differences here between
talking about the way things work and how to reform and the
whole underlying structure. Frankly, I think some differences
have been diminished.
I agree whole-heartedly with one thing Dr. Emmert said,
which is that a lot of these economic restrictions in the NCAA
rules, if they were vacated, as Senator Heller's--or abolished
or somehow vacated for athletes as they were for coaches, it
wouldn't make a particle of difference for 90 percent of
athletes. A small athlete, recruited at a small Division III
school, would be able to ask for better health coverage or a
salary and the university, the little school, would be free to
laugh at them and say we don't do it. You know, go somewhere
else. Just like if the piccolo player said, ``I want to be paid
to march in the band.''
The schools are free to bargain that way but it wouldn't
make an enormous difference in precisely these 65 schools that
we're talking about where there is gigantic money if an athlete
can bargain at recruiting for better healthcare coverage for
more time to study or for a longer scholarship. It would change
things because right now the model is that the schools do that
solely at their dispensation.
I mean, the coaches in these big schools even want to give
money out of their own pocket to players, like a tip, because
they know that they don't have enough money to eat. So a model
that recognizes that these athletes are trying to manage two
very demanding careers at once that are in separate spheres, it
is a step forward.
But right now, to me, the least hopeful thing I heard today
is that we are looking to these same 65 schools that are the
most commercialized as the engine of reform in the NCAA. I
really don't see that. They may give higher compensation, they
may give more tips, but they're the ones that created most of
these problems in the first place. And I don't think that the
big schools are going to do anything other than be driven more
and more by the market in athletics and, quite frankly, those
schools exploit their athletes both as players and as students.
Because I go around all of these big schools and the athletes.
They're pushed into certain majors that are easy. They are not
allowed to take certain courses. So the sad thing to me is, I
think, that some differences are outlined and may be
diminished, but I don't see the big 65 schools as an engine for
much reform in the future because their record doesn't show
that.
The Chairman. Any other comments?
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, I had asked before----
The Chairman. I know. You want to have Mr. Emmert be able
to reply to everything that Cory Booker said.
Senator Coats. No. Well, I just think he deserves the
opportunity to do that when someone takes an extra five
minutes, and Senator Booker had every right. And he's most
passionate about what he said, but he leveled some accusations
at the NCAA. I think they at least deserve to be able to
respond to that.
The Chairman. And he'll have ample chance to do that. I
have bent over backwards, annoyed some of my members, to give
you a particular break because you come from Indiana where NCAA
is headquartered. And I've done that.
Senator Coats. Well, I don't think you gave me a particular
break. I was the first one here and that's the normal procedure
and I had my 5 minutes----
The Chairman. If you hadn't been, you made it very clear to
me on the floor that you wanted to be able to be the first one
to ask the questions, and I said, ``That's OK. Clear it with
Senator Thune.''
Senator Coats. But then I said I'll be the first so that
you don't----
The Chairman. Yes, but you also--so I'm not going to bend
on that. This is the closing statement. And Mr. Emmert is free
to answer in any form that he wants. He can write every member
of the Commerce Committee a letter.
Anybody else want to say anything?
Dr. Southall. I've spent the last 15 years of my
professional career examining intercollegiate athletics. And
after this hearing today, I, like yourself, am very
disheartened because I'm not sure that we collectively are
willing to take a cold, hard, objective look, informed by
research and informed by data at the collegiate model of
athletics.
The Chairman. All right.
That being said, I want to thank everybody for this. This
has been a long and interesting hearing. Everything is a first
step, as Neil Armstrong said. We got a lot of steps to make,
and as others have pointed out, the world is changing.
You know, it's like that Jackie Robinson, 42, movie. And
the player comes in and he says ``I want to be traded.'' And
then, a couple weeks later he comes back and says ``I don't
want to be traded.''
``Well, you willing to play with Robinson?''
He said, ``Well, look. The world is changing and I can
change too.''
Now I think there's an element of that in all of this
progress; it has its own varieties, its own sort of beauties.
And I think there has been progress.
My question is that, for my entire adult life, I've been
hearing about this and there are still so many problems that I
think calls into question the way the decisions are made and
carried through within the upper ranks of the football and
basketball community. And that's on my mind, and I'm Chairman,
so I'm going to say that. And I'm also going to say that is the
last thing I'll say and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Indianapolis, IN, August 4, 2014
Hon. John Thune,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
254 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thune:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Commerce
Committee during the July 9, 2014 hearing, ``Promoting the Well-Being
and Academic Success of College Athletes.''
I have provided below some supplemental information following up
from the hearing and would greatly appreciate having it submitted for
the record.
Academics
1. Graduating from college is as important an achievement as winning
on the field. The NCAA embraces its role in providing student-
athletes the skills for what comes next in life. The NCAA's
commitment--and responsibility--is to give young people
opportunities to learn, play and succeed.
2. More than eight out of 10 student-athletes will earn bachelor's
degrees. More than 35 percent of Division I student-athletes
will earn postgraduate degrees.
3. The NCAA and its member institutions accomplish this in part by
setting standards to make sure incoming student-athletes are
prepared for college coursework and by tracking their progress-
toward-degree once they are on campus.
4. Each year, the NCAA releases report cards for each Division I
team every year called the Academic Progress Rate (APR). If
half or more of the student-athletes are not on track to
graduate, that team is ineligible to participate in postseason
play. That is how seriously the NCAA and its member school take
their commitment to academics. Teams can also face penalties
for low academic performance.
5. Now in its 10th year, the Academic Progress Rate has redefined
the student-athlete experience, from when prospects are
recruited in high school to their progress semester by semester
on campus. Because they have a near real time academic measure,
coaches and administrators now know when teams might be
struggling academically and can take immediate steps to address
the situation.
6. Approximately 13,000 student-athletes have returned to school to
finish their degrees since APR was formed.
7. The NCAA also calculates and releases the Division I Graduation
Success Rate (GSR) and the similar Division II Academic Success
Rate (ASR) each year.
8. The NCAA graduation rates are more accurate than the Federal
graduation rate because they account for transfer students and
those student-athletes who leave in good academic standing,
such as those who leave college to play professional sports.
9. Even when using the Federal graduation rate, NCAA student-
athletes graduate at higher rates than their peers in the
general student body.
Health Insurance for Student-Athletes
1. Member institutions are required to certify that all student-
athletes have insurance for athletically related injuries. That
insurance must have limits equaling the NCAA Catastrophic
Program deductible, at a minimum. Insurance coverage must be in
place before a student-athlete can practice or compete.
2. The NCAA's catastrophic insurance plan covers medical costs over
$90,000 to ensure injured student-athletes have access to the
care they need. During championships, the NCAA provides
insurance coverage for all injuries.
Division I Reforms
Past Reform Efforts
In the past three years, including in recent weeks, Division I
members have made a number of other changes benefiting student-
athletes, some of which are clarifications of practices that have been
in place, some new policies and others that will be effective soon:
1. Schools may provide student-athletes with multi-year scholarships
and may provide institutional financial aid to a former
student-athlete for any term in which he or she is enrolled.
2. Schools may provide meals and snacks to all student-athletes
(scholarship and non scholarship) at their discretion as a
benefit to participation in intercollegiate athletics. The
meals proposal was developed by the Rules Working Group over an
8-month period beginning in December 2012. The proposal was
sponsored by the Division I Legislative Counsel in October 2013
for consideration by the membership during the 2013-14
legislative cycle. The proposal was sent out for Division I
membership comment in January 2014 and was adopted by the
Division I Legislative Council in April 2014. The meals
proposal takes effect on August 1, 2014.
3. Qualifying student-athletes who cannot transfer and play
immediately without a waiver are allowed a sixth year to
complete their four years of eligibility.
4. Clarity that student-athletes and college-bound student-athletes
may work at camps and clinics for compensation without concerns
about impermissible benefits.
5. In addition to mandatory general academic counseling, tutoring
services and a life skills program, schools may provide their
student-athletes academic support, career counseling and
personal development services that support the students'
success as supplements to classroom and athletics activities.
Current Reform Efforts
1. The Division I Board of Directors is considering a new governance
structure to allow the division to be more streamlined and
responsive to membership needs throughout the division,
particularly those of student-athletes. Student-athlete voice
and vote will be emphasized in the new governance model, a
concept universally supported by membership comment and
discussions. A comprehensive review of the structure was
launched in January 2013.
2. Coaches, student-athletes, faculty athletics representatives,
athletics directors, compliance professionals, and presidents
and chancellors all have a voice in the Division I reform
dialogue. This underscores that everyone involved in college
sports needs to help improve it.
3. There have been challenges in governing under the current
structure since there is such great diversity (resources,
mission, size, student body make-up) among the 346 schools and
32 conferences in Division I.
4. Following the Division I Governance Dialogue, attended by more
than 800 members at the annual NCAA Convention in January 2014,
the presidents and chancellors on the Division I Steering
Committee on Governance began narrowing choices for a new
structure.
5. The proposed governance model was presented and endorsed by the
Division I Board of Directors in late April and has been sent
out to membership for feedback, bringing the Board closer to
approving a new governance system in August. Key areas of the
proposed model include:
a. Division I would continue to be led by a Board of Directors,
composed primarily of university presidents but adding a
student-athlete, a senior woman administrator, an athletics
director and a faculty athletics representative. These
additional individuals all would be voting members of the
Board.
b. The Board of Directors' top responsibilities would be oversight
and strategic issues, including guiding the overall
direction of the division and ensuring that rules continue
to adhere to the mission and principles of the organization
and support student-athlete well-being.
c. A 38-member council would be created (composed of athletics
directors, other campus and athletics administrators, two
voting student-athletes and four voting conference
commissioners), which would oversee much of the Division I
day-to day policy and legislative responsibilities. This
group would make the final decision on specific rule
changes. For example, the recent change allowing schools to
provide meals and snacks to all student-athletes
(scholarship and non scholarship) at their discretion as a
benefit to participation in intercollegiate athletics would
go to this council in the future.
d. The restructured governance model would provide the five
conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12,
Pac-12, Southeastern Conference) autonomy to make rules on
specific student-athlete well-being matters. Division I
members not in these conferences will have the opportunity
to take similar action.
Division I Rulebook Changes
Some of the most significant recent reforms to the Division I
rulebook include:
1. Student-athletes may receive competition-related expenses from
qualified sponsors.
2. New rules allow for open communication between a school and a
student once the student has committed, promoting stronger
relationships between coaches and students.
3. Student-athletes and college-bound student-athletes may work at
camps and clinics for compensation.
4. Schools, conferences, and other groups may pay travel expenses
for a student-athlete to receive awards not affiliated with the
school.
5. Schools may provide reasonable entertainment and pay expenses for
student-athletes representing the school in practice,
competition and noncompetitive events. Schools may also pay
expenses for student-athletes involved in national team
tryouts, practices and competitions.
6. Scouting rules are simplified by prohibiting live scouting of
opponents, except in limited circumstances.
NCAA Revenue Distributions
1. Sports Sponsorships and Grant in Aid Funds--$l88.3M
a. This fund assists Division I schools with the continuation of
the sports they sponsor at the varsity level and
scholarships for student-athletes.
2. Basketball Fund--$188.3M
a. The basketball fund payments are made to conference offices and
independent schools based upon a rolling six-year average
of performance in the Division I men's basketball
tournament.
3. Division I Championships--$97.4M
a. The resources allocated to Division I championships include
support for team travel, food and lodging for the student-
athletes participating, and ancillary events at
championships.
4. Student Assistance Fund--$73.5M
a. This money is intended to help Division I student-athletes with
essential needs that arise during their time in college.
These funds are available to pay for costs associated with
family emergencies; clothing and other essentials; academic
supplies; and medical and dental costs not covered by
another insurance program. It can also be used for
educational purposes, such as enrolling in summer school.
5. Academic Enhancement Fund--$25.1M
a. A companion to the Student Assistance Fund, the academic
enhancement fund is intended to enhance academic support
programs for student-athletes at Division I schools.
6. Division II and III allocations--$63.2M
a. The NCAA allocates funds to Division II and Division III to
support grants, student-athlete services and programs. It
also funds championships including game expenses, meal
allowances and team transportation, and supports other
initiatives including grants, student-athlete services, and
programs.
7. Other Division I distributions--$43.7M
a. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors and Executive Committee
approved a supplemental $43.7 million distribution to
Division I schools, which was available due to revenues
exceeding expenses for the Association's 2011-12 Fiscal
Year.
8. Conference Grants--$8.SM
a. These grants are used to implement conference-level programs in
five specific categories of focus. These include
officiating programs, compliance and enforcement,
enhancement of opportunities for ethnic minorities, and
heightening awareness of drug and gambling education
programs.
9. Student-Athlete Services--$57.8M
a. The NCAA invests this money each year in a variety of student-
athlete-focused areas. These include health and safety,
catastrophic injury insurance, drug testing, and leadership
development. This money also funds several NCAA
scholarships, including postgraduate scholarships for
former student-athletes pursuing master's degrees,
doctorates or other advanced degrees. In addition, money
from this fund supports the NCAA Honors Ceremony and the
Woman of the Year award.
10. Membership Support Services--$27.7M
a. While NCAA rules are proposed and approved by NCAA member
schools, those same campuses often turn to the NCAA to help
interpret and enforce the rules fairly across the
Association. To assist with this work, the NCAA dedicates
significant resources to the governance process, including
committees and the NCAA Convention, in addition to training
for campuses and national office support.
11. Educational Services--$4.7M
a. The NCAA offers training and educational services to members
and student athletes on a regular basis. These funds
support various programs, including the Women's Coaches
Academy, the Pathway Program, Emerging Leaders Seminar, and
the annual NCAA Convention.
12. Other Association-wide Expenses--$27.9M
a. A portion of the NCAA budget is allocated to other association-
wide expenses that support member schools and the overall
association, including legal services, communications and
business insurance coverage.
13. General and Administration Expenses--$40.7M
a. To fund the day-to-day administration of the NCAA and its
national office, these expenses cover the cost of central
services and initiatives at the national office, including
administrative and financial services, operations,
information technology, facilities management and
executive.
Again, I very much appreciate your willingness to make this NCAA-
provided information part of the hearing record. Should you have any
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Emmert,
NCAA President.
MAE:clk
[all]
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.