Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
The host welcomes attendees, introduces the webinar series, and presents the moderator and panelists. Amanda Christovich outlines the plan for the discussion and invites audience questions.
Thank you, Becca.Welcome to the 50 58th webinar from the Drake Group Education Fund.Our mission is to provide fact-based information and expert insights to ensure college athletes can fully realize the promise of a college degree while excelling as both students and athletes.Webinars like this allow us to share new ideas, challenge our thinking, and stay ahead on critical issues.We're incredibly grateful to our panelists for sharing their time and expertise, and to all of you for joining us today.We're also very grateful for our webinar series sponsor, Christine Brown and Partners, a boutique law practice specifically focused on college athlete advocacy and sports law.Founded by former higher education risk manager manager and litigation attorney Christine Brown, the firm places an emphasis on protecting people over systems in the rapidly shifting landscape of intercollegiate athletics.Please note, the views expressed by our speakers are their own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of their respective employers or organizations.
Now, I'm honored to introduce the moderator of today's program.Please meet our uh Amanda Christovich.Amanda is a front office sports reporter who covers the business of sports of the sports industry with a focus on college sports including breaking news, scoops, features, and investigations.She's a Columbia Journalism School graduate whose work has appeared in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and her reporting is regularly cited by outlets in like The Athletic and CBS Sports.Her relentless pace shows in how consistently she's been on top of the Protect College Sports Act and the wider college sports news cycle while also making frequent radio and podcast uh appearances from NPR, C-SPAN, to the SEC Networkto discuss it all.Uh now for our panelists.First, we have Brian Barrio.Brian serves as the director of athletics at Florida Gulf Coast University and brings over 20 years of intercollegiate athletics experience.
Previously, Brian served as athletic director at University of Maryland, Baltimore County.Prior to that, he led Central Connecticut State University's athletics program.He holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of California, Hastings College of Law and a Bachelor's from Boston College.Welcome Ben LeCourse, an attorney at Christine Brown and Partners specializing in sports law and college athletics governance.He He previously served in NCAA compliance at Iowa State and the University of Oklahoma where he managed implementation and advised NIL implementation and advised coaches, administrators, and college athletes on eligibility, amateurism, and compliance matters.Please welcome Frank Hawkins, attorney, consultant, and ex-NFL executive where he served as senior vice president of business affairs.Frank leverages his deep experience expertise to help clients navigate the complex and evolving intersections of sports, media, and technology.He earned his Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School and completed his undergraduate studies also at Harvard University.
Also welcome Etienne Thomas, deputy athletics director for internal affairs and senior woman administrator at North Carolina Central University.She brings over two decades of athletic administration experience including at the University of Kansas, Winston-Salem State University, Kentucky State University, as well as earning her JD at the University of Iowa College of Law.And it's all yours, Amanda.
Okay.Um well, thank you so much for the kind introduction.Um so great to have all the panelists here and all of our um participants.I'm already getting Q&A questions, which is great.I love questions and I know I I mean I know we're supposed to do, you know, one half I'll ask the questions and another half uh the participants will ask the questions and I'll moderate, but I I typicallytry to be a little bit more um lenient there.So, if I notice several questions that are like a bunch of questions are piling up, we will pause in the middle of mine and go to yours.So, please send as many as you want and I will do my best to get to all of them because they're much more important than my questions.
The panel begins with the bill’s core governance provisions, especially transfers, eligibility, NIL, and revenue sharing. Brian and Etienne explain why they see the transfer restrictions as the bill’s most important immediate benefit.
Um So, Protect College Sports Act.It's 170 pages of legislation.I have very unfortunately read through multiple iterations of it and I've been trying to figure out how to break up this conversation because there is so much to talk about here.So, I think the best way to do it, just to start, is to have a brief conversation about the first part of the bill, which is the governance structure that it puts in place with transfers, eligibility, NIL, revenuesharing, etc.and how that might affect schools.And then we can talk about the media rights and commentary portion after that.Does that work for everybody?Okay.Great.So, I think my first question and the question that we are all trying to answer is the Protect College Sports Act would double double the revenue share sharing cap, implement a one-time transfer, and a five-year eligibility model similar
to the one the NCAA just passed.I'm curious how everybody thinks this is going to affect the schools outside the Power Four.We have obviously a couple representatives of some of the schools outside the Power Four.Um So, I don't know if anybody wants to start, feels very strongly about starting to answer this question.Brian, you want to start?And then And then we're just going to keep going around this circle and And I'll sort of call on you guys when you least want to be called on as is my job as as journalist.But, Brian, I'll let you start.
Yeah, thanks.I I'm already disappointed that we've discouraged disrespectful questions.I was looking forward to those.But um No, I when it comes to the the Protect College Sports Act, I you know, the way I look at it and it was mentioned in the introductions, I'm a long-time athletic director at low major, mid majorinstitutions in Division I.Um I don't look at it as the Protect College Sports Act versus my perfect vision of what college sports should be cuz I they're very different.And I have some really great thoughts, I think, on what that could look like, but it's also um I I think the real choice that we're facing right now is the Protect College Sports Act or three plus moreyears of the chaos that we're involved in right now.And that's how I'm thinking about it as the athletic director at Florida Gulf Coast.
And the one thing about the Protect College Sports Act that makes me want to embrace it even though it's a flawed piece of legislation is the transfer restriction.Uh because I think we we desperately, desperately need that.It It's driving It's more driving the chaos in certainly at our level of college athletics than any of the NIL revenue sharing, any of that stuff.That's stuff we can live with.The the non-stop transfers are destabilizing for the enterprise, um harmful to the academic outcomes for the student athletes.I think it's bad for every um every constituency in this from the fans to the students to the schools.So, the fact that it allows us to end the transfer madness and get a handle on that makes it good enough for me for right now versus where we are otherwise.
Frank and Ben discuss how the bill would change litigation, class actions, and antitrust exposure. They argue that the legislation may reduce athlete legal remedies rather than create real stability.
Okay.Athian, how about you next?
Yeah, Amanda, I would jump right in here and say, thinking about what Brian has indicated, it is you're looking at the haves and have-nots, and we've talked about that for so long.But what's really important, we talk about student athletes, and we really have to embody that and continue to talk about student athletes being amateur students and amateur athletes and not being employees.That's so critical.and as we look at a possible national clearinghouse, a national oversight body, those are the things that are very important for a small FCS like us, for HBCUs that are limited resource institutions.Sometimes you call them historically minority serving institutions and looking at how we generate revenue.Sometimes it's through those guaranteed games and playing some of the larger institutions, but then also that creates a challenge because the portal becomes a thing.We play larger institutions, they see great talent at smaller institutions and then all of a sudden the portal opens and students start jumping into the portal and we kind of start to forget about that degree and why we
came to school.So it's great we're thinking about professional sports in the future.We want student athletes to be able to have those great opportunities, but we also want to make sure that one we can field our rosters and that we are continuing to grow that pipeline on our institution campuses andthen we're also not just spinning in a circle and we're chasing that next big shiny penny.And so with our student athletes, we're teaching them about what is life after college, what is life when the ball stops bouncing or you stop playing.And when you look at the Protect College Sports Act, it all plays into that, but making sure that we are focused on what continues to be the crux of who we are as an entity, as a membership drivenentity and there being opportunities for all, but also making sure that it stays competitive, but stays fair, stays equitable and that we really look at the mental health and well-being of our student athletes and putting those opportunities first
and foremost.
Awesome.Okay, so slight modification of the question for Ben and Frank to sort of cater to your legal expertise.There are I'm just curious from a broad sort strokes perspective of the governance portion of this bill.What changes in you know, what part of the legal landscape improves, becomes more stable in college sports, what part of the legal landscape, you know, does this not affect or help, etc.I'm kind of curious your top line thoughts there.And maybe Frank we can start with you and then go to Ben after that.
Um what changes?The nature of the litigation that's going to result changes.There will be antitrust exemptions for certain things that will prevent students from suing um in order to uh improve their rights.There will, on the other hand, be different types of suits that students can bring.Um and um it may be it is likely to be more difficult to bring class actions if this bill passes.Um Mhm.I don't think that it adds to stability.I think that the bill is fundamentally flawed structurally.Um and it points out to me how good a job Paul Tagliabue did at the NFL putting together an analytics shop to understand the true implications of what's going on.Um and um I think that What else?Um I think that having seen some of how the NCAA acts in the litigation, it's a high-risk proposition to give a recidivist antitrust violator um an antitrust exemption.
The NFL, which was much more cohesive and uh focused around a single objective, lost nine nothing in the Supreme Court when we tried to get an antitrust exemption.And it's I think a very high-risk proposition to give an antitrust exemption even visa-vie only athlete suits to an organization like the NCAA here.So, that's my reaction.In case you can't tell, I'm not a super fan of the bill.
What gave it away?
That's awesome.Uh I know I would I would uh you know, to expand on what what Frank was saying, I completely agree the type of litigation and avenues that student athletes typically had to advocate for themselves are almost completely goingaway.I mean, the reason that we're even here is through the court system.It's through uh those those antitrust avenues.And it's, you know, it's almost like asking a you know, a someone who always gets pulled over for speeding, like, oh, instead of punishing them, they they just take away the speed limit for them and and see whathappens.So, that's what I'm I'm a little concerned about those those avenues for for student athletes to be able to continue to fight for their rights.Now, there are um there are some you know, private right of action avenues as well, but those are still um pretty limited to some of the limited rights that this bill does provide.
So, I completely agree with what Frank said.
Brian responds by emphasizing the public-good role of college athletics and the need to protect scholarships and women’s sports. Frank counters that the bill may create long-term structural problems and shrink opportunities over time.
Curious if the two athletics administrators have any sort of response to Frank and Ben sort of Yeah, go ahead, Brian.
I I fully agree with them that this is this bill would be really really bad for plaintiffs' attorneys.Um you know, trying to defend antitrust um trying to defend the whole enterprise from antitrust issues when we're getting sued, you know, in in obviously with um in civil actions uh uh is different than trying to defend afederally carved out exception in anti-trust law.Limited, it's not a blanket anti-trust exception.And nor is it unprecedented.I mean, Major League Baseball has an anti-trust exemption.There's other industries where Congress has recognized a need for collective action that can't happen under anti-trust action.Um and I think the piece that's being missed is under you know, I people look at this from the lens of the Power Five.And so I you know, I heard the analogy of the the repeated speeder.Um a lot of us are going the speed limit and we've always been going the speed limit.
And in so doing, we've created what is effectively the second biggest scholarship program in this country.So, you've got the GI Bill and then you've got college athletic scholarships.I think it's something in the neighborhood of $4 billion a year to students, many of whom otherwise wouldn't go to college.And that is that is in the balance in all this.So, we're thinking about this tiny group of plaintiffs who have an opportunity to make a lot of money down the road in professional sports and they're making a lot of money right now in college sports.We're not thinking about the other 99% of these athletes, um many of whom wouldn't be able to go to college without college athletics.And so, yeah, in a perfect world, there's two different sets of um you know, I I I have I'm being a little bit flippant, but I I agree with them that there need to be some guardrails and some
brakes around the Power Five programs and some of the excesses.But that's not everybody that's in this tent.And it it's there's a public good here that also needs to be protected.Uh and it's the scholarships that we're providing to students in other sports.It's the opportunities we've created for women in the last 35, 40 years that are are going to be endangered here.Um Uh there's a lot more at play here.This is not the NFL.We're not we're not talking about private um companies with athletes or who are all part of one relatively similar cohort that create a pretty uh a pretty logical bargaining unit.Like the in the NFL, a collective bargaining agreement makes perfect sense.It's operational, et cetera, et cetera.I would love to hear if the if the solution here is going to be a collective bargaining agreement, I'd love to hear first what the bargaining unit is.
Secondly, who are we bargaining with?Um what does this whole enterprise look like?Because 94% of the programs we're talking about lose money on athletics.They don't make money on athletics.So, are we talking about negotiating with athletes to share the losses with us?What what is like what is the how does this work operationally?I I agree that this bill is flawed.I agree that some of the people who've pushed for different measures in the bill um have done so with some bad intent.Um I still think it's way better than the status quo, and it gets us to a better place for the next couple of years than we are right now.
Can I um respond briefly to Brian?
Sure.
I want to say that you hit the most important reason that I got involved in this, which is this is second only to the GI Bill as an engine as college sports is second only in my mind tothe GI Bill as an engine of social mobility.That's what needs to be preserved.But I did some analysis on the way that the bill works.And I think that over the next few years, maybe not the next two or three years, but the next five to seven years, the structural imbalances are such that schools like yours are going to be in serious trouble.Um I don't know whether the modeling has been done at any schools.I can guarantee it hasn't been done at the NCAA level.That's what I was saying about uh Tagliabue putting together an awesome analytics shop.We modeled every CBA um to make sure that it worked for all of the teams in the league.
And um I I'm worried that what you're purchasing at the expense of uh purchasing short-term stability at the expense of long-term debt spiral, especially for the sport of football.Um I was talking with an ex-NFL executive yesterday and he and I went back to one of uh Paul's favorite points.What were the top two sports in the United States 100 years ago?They were boxing and horse racing, even beyond baseball.And his comment was, I worry that because the number of college football spots will dry up, it'll affect athlete choices at the high school level.And that this bill may be starting us down the road to becoming horse racing or boxing, where there's a limited number of gladiators who play.And that's not good for the sport.I share his concern.
The conversation shifts to HBCU-specific provisions, media rights, and the temporary nature of the bill’s funding mechanisms. Etienne argues that HBCUs need permanent representation and durable access to resources, not short-term carveouts.
Yeah, I I don't disagree with that.I think you and I agree on the problem.I I think the um I guess I don't know if I'm being more or less cynical when I say the the perfect solution looks a lot different than the PCSA.I still think from our perspective, and I'm looking at it from the perspective of a non-football school.
Mhm.
Um from our perspective, just getting a handle on the transfer thing for the next few years helps us immeasurably.And I agree with you, it's not a permanent solution.Some of the structural stability and spending issues are not going away because of this bill.Like there's going to continue to be a lot of work to do.In a perfect world, if if you were giving me an alternative of this bill versus one that's much more thoughtfully crafted and separates out the the large schools from the small schools in a in a meaningful like Iwould be all for that.I am I support this bill out of somebody who's sitting in an office with a lot of 19 and 20-year-old kids who benefit from what we do and don't want to see that change tomorrow.Um and I'm and I also I'm thinking about the long term which I appreciate the analytical approach you're suggesting.
I I would also I'm not being facetious when I say like I I would love to hear what the what is the bargaining unit look like?Who are we bargaining with?Because all of those details are so much more complex than than like I said the NFL uh collective bargaining unit.
Absolutely and I have been spending a lot of time with ADs at um various schools and um uh general counsels um discussing exactly those sorts of issues over the last year since I have been have come out ofsemi-retirement to deal with some of this stuff.And quite frankly um I um have been thinking about it since um 2021 when I started doing work for uh Georgetown University and Jack DeGioia when he was um on the transformation committee.So I've been thinking about it for a long time.I don't think that most sports in college are suitable for collective bargaining.I think that the key question that you've got to do here is think through how can we create a structure that gives you the time to figure out how to sort these sports.Um it's interesting.I I will say that uh um Randy Levine uh the ex-baseball head of labor, the guy who tried to impose um, management's terms on the union in the mid-90s and ended up getting slapped down by both the courts
and the NLRB and ultimately Congress when they took away baseball's antitrust exemption in labor uh, in 1998.Um, he actually said the smartest thing in the Trump, um, uh, round table, the very first one back at the beginning of May or the end of April.He said, "You know, a two-year antitrust exemption just to permit people to talk might make a lot of sense."And that to me is something that does make a lot of sense.I think that the big danger here is that this bill locks a lot of stuff in and will create a sclerotic structure over time where you've got to go back to Congress to get changes on things as theshape of the industry evolves.So, that's one of my perspectives.I think you and I really are more aligned than you might think.Um, but
Well, I I absolutely
is what's the next
the end of by the end of this webinar, we are going to have a new bill of our own to propose to Congress and it is going to be the correct one.Um, no, but I mean, this is really like this question and it's it's a question I get asked a lot.It is the core question, I think, of the existential future of college sports is is collective bargaining the way we do things in the pros, like the way that things are going for certain particularly for a certain groupof these schools.Um, I want to spend some time on that, but just really quickly, just to establish a little bit more of the framework for some of the, you know, things that we're going to be like thinking about, especially withregards to that.I am curious about the part of the bill related to HBCUs in particular.
Um and I wanted to bring in ATN for that.Um because I've heard a lot of conflicting views about this HBCU funding portion of the bill that I believe is really only for certain broadband and media services.Um and then also just in general kind of cuz correct me if I'm wrong.That's the part one of the question.Part two of the question is it sounds to me like there's this tension between the parts of the bill that would provide rules and the part of the bill that doubles the rev share cap.At least for those looking at schools.I mean maybe that's not an issue if you're not in an FBS football program, but I'm wondering if that's accurate if you feel like that is part of, you know, if that is maybe a concern because I heara lot of folks talk about how the bill is going to, you know, help with the revenue problems and I just am not sure that that's the case.
So ATN and then Brian.Let's just talk about that for a quick sec and then we'll go back to the existential questions.
Absolutely.So man, I think the piece that comes up for HBCUs and that looking at at the cap because a lot of us are just jumping into revenue share.We're on on that lower end of it when you're talking about limited resources and the sports that are involved with the opt-in, but from HBCUs perspective the piece that's in there with the media rights.A lot of our conferences, including our own, are creating our own sports broadcast systems, our sports broadcast networks and doing not just streaming, but now for us we have a MEAC sports network that we've released and that providesa different opportunity, a different visibility, allows us to control the narrative, allows us to generate revenue internally, but also to really, similar to what you talked about name, image, likeness, is to control how our brand is displayed andand how our schools are represented, but also looking on the other side of that is the HBCU part of this bill and looking at the ignite portion that has been hopeful to be part of it is a grant.
It's not a permanent piece.It's It's not something.And so that's one of the questions that has come up as well as why is it not a permanent piece of how this goes into play as opposed to having a window of time on it.And that question needs to be answered as it continues to move forward.I think that's where some of the tug-of-war is is don't make an exception to the rule, make it part of it.If we are moving forward as one body, as one entity and creating this overall opportunity, make it part of it.But I think that also comes back to who we're listening to, who are we talking to, and whose voices are in the room.And as you look at representation, how that representation is handled.So think about, you know, historically as an NCAA, how we handled, you know, we went for one school, one vote, and we moved on, we evolved um into having different entities, different committees.
As we move into this place with the Protect College Sports Act, for it to make sense, there has to be that representation as HBCUs, it has to be real representation.I'm not interested in being invited um to represent um our conference, our institution, and I vote, and my vote means absolutely nothing.It's diluted obviously um by just sheer numbers or by people saying, "Oh, it's great to have you in the room, uh small uh limited resource institutions, HBCUs, but we're going to give you this little piece for a coupleyears, see how it works."And then we forget about it as opposed to it being part of the fabric of what moves forward because that impacts student athletes, that impacts our institutions.When you talk about the revenue share and the caps, those caps are created so that, okay, don't blow all of the money um as the larger institutions, but for smaller institutions, what are those parameters?
Um there has to be something um that is there um for the smaller schools and for us as HBCUs, but having the opportunity for the media rights is going to be important um in terms of what that revenuecan look like, truly being able to have that revenue come in.But, listening to HBCUs tell you how it should be allocated, how we should have access to it.Don't limit it based on just who has the least amount of resources, which is some of how it is set up, uh and then um allocating those funds so that um those schools can come up to a standardof sorts.But again, who is setting that standard?But actually asking the question, listening to the answer, and then giving an opportunity to spread those resources so that you get to a different playing field.Um it's not going to be a level playing field.
It's just not.That's not the way it's being written, that's not being the way it's rolled out.But then, um don't make it um unfair as we continue to move forward, and we're asking for opinions, feedback, and engagement.Um make it um allocate it correctly.
Amanda asks whether the right stakeholders were involved in shaping the bill, and the panel largely says no. Brian and Etienne describe how non-FBS schools and student athletes have lacked meaningful voice in college sports governance.
Yeah, I mean I guess I just like fundamentally don't understand why the bill is only offering funding for a certain type of media rights for HBCUs versus like why you know, and that was a part that was sortof tacked on at the end.So, it's like 2015, um which I think brings us back to this bigger question that you know, we're all grappling with about like getting people in the room.Um and I and I think I want to like sort of reposition the conversation around specifically like this bigger question about PCSA versus collective bargaining or maybe conference specific um rules, which is something that some folks are trying,like from each of your perspectives, and we're going to start with Ben this time because um you've been a little quiet for a few minutes, Ben.Do you feel like all of the adequate stakeholders were in the room because I'll pose the critique that a lot of the proponents of collective bargaining are po- are posing, which is that they the players weren't in the
room.Whether, you know, to me it doesn't seem like anybody was in the room besides folks in Congress.Um, I would argue that some of the lobbyists have actually told me that they were locked out, too.
Yeah.
Um, on any on all sides, which is maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing, I don't really know.So, I would love for everybody to answer that question of like, do you just really feel like, you know, either who you represent was in, you know, had enough say in this bill or is there another group thatyou feel like did or didn't?And so, Ben, we're going to start.
know.I think that's a great question.I I I agree.I from a coming at it from a student athlete perspective, absolutely not.We we don't think that um I I don't believe that the student athletes' voice was um was considered or heard or heard enough.Um And the fact that we're doing this a little bit backwards, we're creating these rules, these antitrust exemptions, all of these issues that could potentially be collectively bargained.Um, I don't have the perfect answer for how that structure is going to is going to be is going to be run, you know, rolled out.However, I I think the fact that there's this commission that's coming out on the back end of this bill passing is it kind of speaks a lot to where we are.It's, "Okay, we're going to pass it and then we're kind of just going to study it to see how it how it is rolled out, what the effects are going to be."
Um, you know, I I think I I would have liked a a smaller bill that didn't have all of blanket or all of these antitrust exemptions rolled out the same time while they're still trying to figure out thecollective bargaining piece and the employment piece on the back end.So, like Frank said, a lot of this stuff is like yes, it can be it can be revised, but you know, you've seen how difficult it is to to revise a bill and after it's been passed.So, I would have liked to have seen that study be to have been done beforehand before it was rolled out.
Brian, do you feel like the schools, particularly the schools in your position, non-football schools, like had a say here?I mean, I know you've said that like the bill is better than nothing from your perspective, but I mean, kind of how do you feel about that?
I would say I bet I bet you'll see Etienne's head nod when I say this, but um I would say at the 1 AAA and FCS level, so the the non FBS level, we have not had leadership, wehave not had a voice in any of this for 15 years.And it and it goes back to when they took away the one school one vote, which look, I I understand there were some issues with that just from a practical standpoint with what we were facing in a legalsense then, but it didn't go very well this way either.Um but we have had no leadership, we have had no voice, we've had no seat at the table.The NCAA has represented 30 schools, they have not represented us in any of this.Um and that's a really frustrating thing for for all of us.And when you talk to our to the ADs at this level or even some of the um de facto kind of leadership groups, uh there's so many there's so many athletic directors who are just they're either they either
are so in the weeds on what they're doing at our understaffed underserved departments that they don't have time to get involved in this and know it well, or they don't have the background, the legal background, the training, theunderstanding to feel comfortable speaking up, but they know something's wrong and they know that we're we don't have leadership or a voice in any of this.So I I wouldn't push back against that at all.I think Ben maybe Ben said that I whoever said that that's exactly right.Um so I mean that go that gets to why we're here and um uh you know how I wish it could be in the future.I have Like I said, I've got um grandiose concepts for how this could be better that that are um that are at would be at square one if we started them right now just like collective bargaining is at
square one right now.Like that's the that's the thing about the Protect College Sports Act.And I'm By the way, I am not a lobbyist for this.I don't think it's a great bill any of that.Um I'm just a guy at a small school really hoping that we get like that we could get some short-term stability while we figure this out.Um and I get that there's risks in that too.It's not a perfect solution.Um but I it's right now our choice I think if we're being honest about this is the PCSA which is you know close to the finish line.It would it obviously has a hurdle to get through in the house.Um but it's it's that far into the process and it was conceptualized I think it started being conceptualized at least three and a half years ago.Um or starting at absolute square one on collective bargaining or absolute square one on a skinnier bill that nobody had that nobody's written that nobody started to uh lobby on behalf of.
I I I think a skinnier bill and I know that's what the Drake Group has been pushing for.I think a a smaller bill that just addresses a couple of the core issues would be a really great place to stabilize us.But it didn't have the political wherewithal to pass.And so I it's not a choice between that and the PCSA.It's PCSA or three or four more years of this at least.And this is crushing us.It's crushing our kids.It's crushing us.So we can I would love to talk about the theoretical frameworks and all and all that stuff.And again, I I'm still waiting to hear from anybody out there in the Twitter sphere or anywhere else talking about how collective bargaining is the solution.I would love to hear what that looks like and how it works and how long it takes because uh you've got public and private universities, which are covered by two completely different legal regimes.
So, you'd have to address that through Congress, first of all.You've got So, you've got public and private institutions, you've got football schools, non-football schools, Olympic sports, football, basketball.It's so complex to to even begin.There I have not heard anybody even verbalize or write a potential way that would work.So, I get that in in concept, the NFL has done it, that's great.It's totally different.In the world of college athletics, explain to me what the bargaining units look like, who they're bargaining with, all that stuff.And by the way, once you explain it, then you've got to pass it for 4 years through Congress before we can even start to address these things.So, that's that's why I support a bill that I think is I don't I kind of have to hold my nose and support it, but I do support it, because this transfer thing is killing us, and it has
it has to end.
Brian, I absolutely agree.Um we're smaller schools, limited staff, limited resource.I mean, I go down the hall and look at all the administrators in our our building.I look at my boss, and and we're running around.He's knee-deep in it with the rest of us, and every week, every day sometimes, something is changing.And our compliance staff, which is limited in size, is just chasing it.And you're you're trying to get it right, make sure you get it right.And so, sometimes you have to pause to hope you've got the correct answer in this moment.And then it's it's a yo-yo effect.Well, some of the larger schools, they've got 25 people, and people that are focused on just this.So, just sit and watch the landscape, look and see what happened at 10:28 at night, and then make sure we execute implement the next day.
Yeah, it's a different dynamic.So, absolutely agree with you.I I sat on the NCAA Division I Council when we first created it, and we brought student athletes into the room for the first time, and they had a vote sitting at the table with everyone else.It's important that you have a vote, and that it has impact when we're talking about how we roll this out.But getting the stability is is you know, a major threshold and opportunity for us.Again, it's not perfect.It's not ideal.We're not there yet.But we also know that there's going to be several iterations and I think we see that with anything that rolls out through Congress is that there's multiple versions.But if we don't at least start down the road of trying to get this right correct, we're just going to be spinning our wheels.It's going to become very taxing and then what does higher ed and college athletics was it look like you know, not next year, but what does it look like next month?
What does it look like come you know, December?
Frank challenges the panel to explain why the bill’s antitrust exemption is not tied to the committee process. Brian argues that the current bill is still preferable to doing nothing, especially for schools facing immediate instability.
Frank, your turn.You're up.
Um I just want to ask one question.
My biggest concern let's go back to what Ben said about how great the committee idea is.I agree.Why not tie the antitrust exemption duration and scope to that of the committee instead of creating a mismatch between the um antitrust exemption going on forever and basically taking most issues that would be subject to collective bargaining atleast in the big sports off the table.Why is that mismatch better in your mind?I'm just curious because to me that's a big issue here.And then I'll be more than happy to go through ideas about collective bargaining because I did spend a lot of time with Jeffrey Kessler back in my NFL days.So um I have some idea of where there are possibilities here.So
Are you asking me?
I'm asking the three of you who are veterans of inside colleges.I'm you know, I'm speaking as someone who has
Well again, Frank, what I what I would say is
Yeah.
In response to your question, what I would say is again, there are a hundred improvements I could suggest in this bill.I mean, that's one of them and there's a hundred other ones.But, the choice isn't between an improved version of this bill and you know, this bill.It's this bill or nothing.And right now, nothing is is we are on in an absolute spiral right now.And and I I say that as somebody I'm fortunate to be in Florida.I'm fortunate to be in a university that's growing and has great enrollment.So, I'm not really In this case, I'm not really speaking directly for Florida Gulf Coast.I mean, and and by the way, I'm speaking for myself across the board here.Let me say that.Um, but, you know, I'm fortunate cuz I'm in a part of the country that's growing and we're in enrollment's growing.
In a lot of the country right now is I'm not telling you anything you don't know.Private schools, even smaller state schools are in like a fight for their lives right now with the enrollment cliff and with and with the value proposition in higher ed and a whole bunch of other issues bigger than whatwe're going to address on this webinar.But, you know, so in in light of that, this is an existential issue for schools like ATN's and and ones that look like mine.And it's not existential for Nebraska or Texas or Ohio State.So, like if we're going to get into the the realm of the hypothetical, what I would say is what a what what this bill should have looked like from the beginning, it should have there should have been asafe harbor under a certain revenue threshold because let's face it, the plaintiffs are not going after Florida Gulf Coast and North Carolina Central.
They're worried about what's happening at Nebraska and Texas and USC.I'll name all of them so I don't single anybody out.Um, but, you know, they're not worried about what we're doing here cuz we're not exploiting anybody.Um, we we put more This is true of every single low major school.We put more money directly in the hands of student athletes in men's and women's basketball than we get back from the NCAA in an entire year.So, people need to understand that.Like, the money we get from the NCAA basketball tournament goes back directly to men's and women's basketball players, period, plus some.
Mhm.
So, there's no exploitation going on.There's We are not the ones who are triggering these lawsuits.We're not the ones flying kids to China to play exhibition game Like none of that stuff is happening here.Um So, there should have been a safe harbor carve out for antitrust in in exchange for So, if if Let's say you have less than $25 million a year in external revenue, you you then are able to optinto a antitrust carve out that protects the enterprise in exchange for maintaining controls that tie athletics to academics the way it should be.And I And every single one of us, I think, would sign up.And that would be the end of us in all this.And then Congress and lawyers and Nebraska could fight this out for the next 25 years.And that's fine with me.But
Mhm.
the problem is there's no carve out.The big guys want us on board because they point to us, you know, they point to us when they say this is a great educational enterprise, which it still is here at Florida Gulf Coast.Um and they want us as co-defendants to help pay their settlements, which we're doing now.And we're we're basically useful idiots in this whole thing.And
Yeah.
So, in a perfect world, there'd be a carve out.But the problem is there's not.So, again, for me, I'm only looking at this as today versus PCSA, and I think PCSA is better.
Etienne and Frank debate whether the bill really addresses the needs of smaller institutions. Brian explains that transfer chaos is already harming rosters, academics, and campus culture, making immediate reform feel urgent.
Okay.UmFSU, I'd be interested in your perspective as well.
Yeah.I I think we we've got to um look at what, you know, stops the bleed um right now and being able to get something in place.Uh it might not be a perfect something and continue to have the conversations, but you also have to have the right people in the room to have the conversation and continue to get this over the finish line becausethat's part of the problem is that uh in its current iteration, it's not everybody's favorite, not my favorite, but do you have the right people that are going to be having the conversation?Or as we've talked about, the doors are closed.And so, it's the same people that are not really boots on the ground having the conversation, um getting feedback from constituents, but which ones?From who?Um who actually, you know, can touch the people that actually going to push the button and make a decision.
So, the votes are great, but if if they're misguided or they're short-sighted or they they're not informed decision-making, then it doesn't help you.Um you know, I look at, you know, advocacy group like the Congressional Black Caucus, which is working with the HBCU um commissioners.It's great.Um you know, getting that feedback, finding out, you know, what benefits our schools, what doesn't, what helps.No, it's not going to move our bottom line tremendously um in terms of moving this bill forward, but what it can do is help us at least get some stability um now in the short-term um as opposed towaiting for the long-term, but you've got to get the voices, and I think that's one of the biggest pieces that right people have not always have been in the room.And we've got a couple couple advocates, a couple of people that can speak up um not only for HBCUs, but looking at our women's sports and um but again, these are all temporary protections versus them being permanent protections.
Um how do you want to change that?Um get them into a permanent space instead of a temporary.I'm not sure why we have two different buckets in that that instance where you have a temporary and then you have a permanent.So, if we're going to look at how this moves forward, put it into the permanent fabric of how this is going to move forward, and now let's look at Cal's athletics instead of piecemealing it um into these littlesegments.We've already done that for so long.Um it's been a lot of what we've done.We've said, "Okay, here."And then we've got three tiers, and then we've had four tiers, and then we continue to exclude and figure out what that looks like, and we have a few speaking for the many.And and that can't be the case as we're going to move forward as as one entity um as opposed to a bunch of little different entities.
Yeah.I mean, from my perspective, the the thing that strikes me about this bill is that it does it's unmodeled as to a lot of the smaller schools and the dynamic of this is going to be negative over timefor the smaller schools.Um and that the there's nothing that gives you any governance leverage to try and improve that situation over time.And um that long-term I think it shrinks student-athlete opportunity.The way the dynamic is set up.I think there's, you know, some fixes for it, but I'm they're not going to happen now.And I find it fascinating that your perspective is that avoiding further litigation over transfers when this bill does nothing except say athletes can't move as distinct from if they do move they can move at certain times or ifthey do move schools from which they are moving get some sort of compensation.
You know, basic things like that.I'm I'm interested in your perspective that it um is more important just to stop the transfer litigation than to try and set things up to move forward in a way that's rational for everybody.So.
So Frank, and I would say to you that it's not so much that I think we should limit their opportunity to move, but I think you've got to figure out what comes first and then what comes next.Um and right now we're we're people just running back and forth and then you want someone else to figure out how to solve it once they arrive on your campus um and what that solution is.And so you've got to figure out which which problem you can solve first at least a little bit.Um, maybe not get it to complete resolution, and then how do you keep them keep student athletes voices heard and at the forefront, but also keep it from being just an open door.And right now, um, that open door, even with a portal that opens and closes, um, giving student athletes that opportunity and that right to move, but also not not making it so that it's just a revolving door.
Um, and that and that's where we've been, um, in this this, uh, recent times.So, I think I think it's that combination as opposed to saying no, they shouldn't have the opportunity, um, to move and move freely.I mean, we all have that right.Um, and we do.And now you talk about move freely and then compete in college athletics.Move freely and participate.Move freely and generate revenue.Uh, what is that dynamic?So, I think that's what that's always been at the crux of transfer regulations in general is you can transfer.It's what you do after you transfer.So, I have a right to control my personal well-being, but what does that look like, um, as a student athlete?And then as a student athlete who generates revenue as a student athlete and NIL, and you've got different dynamics.So, I don't I don't think it's one or the other.
I think it's the and that's in the middle as opposed to just the or that's there.
Yeah, and what what strikes me is you're precisely right on that, and this doesn't set up a system where for schools like yours and Brian's, um, the and gets it is there's a forum where the and gets addressedin a way that's good for both your institutions and the students who start there but decide to move.So.
But what But again, it's we're comparing this to some perfect alternative, which doesn't exist.Like right now, like you're you're I don't I wouldn't argue with you at all that that opportunities over time are likely to shrink, that this is unsustainable.100% and the PCSA does not fix that.But the current situation is worse than that is the problem.
The panel turns to the bill’s financial provisions and their limits for women’s and Olympic sports. Amanda summarizes how the revenue-sharing and roster protections mainly help wealthier schools, while the rest face uncertain support.
We're not It's not There's no perfect fix on the table and and we're kind of talking like it's the PCSA or this other thing that we can do that's going to be amazing and solve the problem.That thing doesn't exist and nobody can even agree what it looks like.What I know right now is happening on my campus and I and ETN can can chime in if it's different on hers.Um is that 10 years ago we had gotten to a place with the NCAA APR rankings which we can make fun of the NCAA I do it as much as anybody else.But the APR was a wonderful program and it went it took us from having uh graduation rates for some of these championship teams that were 10% to where graduation rates were you know higher than they were for thegeneral student body.
I saw it myself over the course of my career to where by 10 years ago or 8 years ago we had men's basketball players um football players who because they were taking summer courses and they were able todo that and they were and they were held to degree progress and the APR was the incentive for us.All of a sudden I had I had men's basketball players graduating in 5 years with an MBA graduating in 4 years with an MBA in some cases because they went to summer.
Mhm.
What's happened now is we've given them the quote-unquote freedom to transfer every year.And that freedom has been manipulated by financial leeches that hang on them like agents and attorneys and everybody else and I'm by the way I'm a lawyer too so I'm you know you can call me a leech ifyou want later.But the uh they're being they're being moved along by these by these people who are taking up to 20% or more of their earnings encouraging them to keep moving because that makes more money for the agent.They've got family members who are who are care way more about you know a $50,000 check this year than they do about the kids education.And so what we're seeing now and I I am absolutely seeing this and I would love to see the NCAA's aggregate numbers if they keep them is that we're seeing players who are at four or five schools in
four or five years graduating with a they do have to graduate because there's still degree progress rules they're graduating with a general studies degree or a um uh uh you know a similar degree where it's like essentially acobbled together worthless degree.And that nobody would choose to take to get, you're not getting a business degree when you transfer four times in four years.And the kids at my school, I don't know about UNC Central, the kids at my school are not going to play in the NBA by and large.So, we're taking a kid who's been at four schools in four years, getting them out of here with a degree in general studies.By the way, we generally not Florida Gulf Coast, again.Uh you know, and so we're not we're doing them a disservice.We're exploiting them in a different way than we used to exploit them.
That's not progress.Like the biggest thing we did, the thing that always made me sleep great at night, is that at the end of the day we were educating students and having them leave here in a better place to be successfulthan they got here.And I can't say that anymore about a lot of places with college basketball and certainly not with football.When you turn the TV on and a kid makes an interception and they say, "Oh, he was great at Ole Miss last year and Oregon the year before that and Bowling Green the year before that and Central Connecticutthe year before that."That that is not progress.It's progress for plaintiff's attorneys.It's not progress for the kids.
So
And
what I'm hearing, sorry to interrupt, just to sort of um try to make sure everyone's on the same page, I guess, with the the conversation.It sounds to me like the biggest problem that Brian and Etienne are facing right now is transfers.
Would you guys agree?
We had an event last night.We had a a tip-off banquet for our men's basketball team and it was great.Our coach closed out the night and it he was talking about his experience as a student athlete back in the '90s and he was talking about when he first got started in his career and he said, you know,when he had a student athlete, you know, go on to life in the future, onto a professional career, they called back when they needed something.They called their coach to say, "Hey coach, can you help me?Hey coach, can you help me out?"He said, "People are moving so often right now."He said, "Who do they call?"He said, "Do they call the the coach from school one, school two, school three, school four, maybe school five?"He said, "What does that look like?It's the relationship building."
And every year you're building new teams.You're trying to get the cohesion and and then also realizing they're they're not employees, but they are on teams where you've got revenue share, but everybody is not the same or my parents want to have that conversation, notthe student athlete, but my parents want to have the conversation.My agent wants to have the conversation before I can even walk in the door.Gone are the days of are we looking at your campus to see do I want to come to school here?Do I want to play for you?Get my degree from here.What does that look like in the future?Uh it's a different dynamic because it is such a revolving door right now and you don't know who's going to be on your teams from year to year and you're looking at the stability and it it's not there.
Um it is a it's a major challenge right now.
Yeah, I I would agree with all of that and I would say it's a the transfer problem is an immediate one.It's a it's already happening.People are already getting hurt by it.The financial problem is more of a slow leak in the tire over time.To Frank's point, it's getting worse.Um but
And I know I mean and and sorry to interrupt, but like you know, I'm just a reporter, but like based on the reporting I've done like the it doesn't appear to me that the Protect College Sports Act doesmeaningfully um fix any of the financial problems because like I said, it doubles and I'm trying to just just for the viewers, I'm trying to sort of answer some of these questions like that cuz I have 22 ofthem and I'm trying to some answer some of them before I like formally ask um you guys their questions, but like some of the questions that are being asked are about women's and Olympic sports.Like what does it do do for them?Well, let me just tell everybody, right?There's a doubles the rev share cap, but then there's like a $5 million um rev share amount of money that women's and Olympic sports athletes in particular can receive if they want or if schools want.
Which most of them won't receive because most schools can't afford that.Um and then there is a requirement to maintain Olympic and women's sports roster spots, but given the understanding that schools are bleeding money at most levels, that requirement only applies to schools that make $80 million or more inathletic department annual revenue.So any school that really can like cannot afford to cut program or to save all of their programs, like will they're not part of that.Only the rich schools who like already can 100% afford to have robust Olympic sports programs are going to be required by law to keep them.So I just want to point that out.Um there are some funding ideas that the PCSA offers in terms of the future of media rights and and pooling and selling media rights as one package, the HBCU broadband and media funding opportunities, but like none of those
are guaranteed either.So just for anyone who is asking questions about those portions of the bill and the finances of it all, I just wanted to kind of like lay the the groundwork for for those viewers.
The discussion moves to the NCAA’s five-year eligibility model and the confusion it created this summer. Amanda then explains the bill’s uncertain path in the House, including opposition from Democrats, labor groups, and possible Republican amendments.
Um Rollbacks Yeah, go ahead.
just say one thing about the women's sports maintenance?There's a new section that was inserted in August that basically said it's no longer team by team based on 2024.Um so that if you had women's cross country with 10 people, that gets maintained.It's an aggregate level.So to the extent that there's an expensive women's sport you can substitute a cheap women's sport with a number Yeah.
It's like Title IX currently works where it's about roster spots like player player to player versus school to or excuse me versus team to team, which is why there are a lot of schools that have football teams with105 players and then they have to like have double the amount of women sports to like compensate for the the football roster spot.
And and I I think that they were at least trying to preserve what existed in 2024 prior to that change in August, which is why I flagged it for you.
But Amanda, considering that you know, most of our schools are close to 60/40 in favor of women at this point, you know, complying with Title IX doesn't mean being 50/50.It means being 60/40 in participations and scholarships.And so I I I don't think there's a ton of I don't think there's a lot of danger um as long as we're staying oh I don't think there's a lot of danger of schools on a on alarge scale dropping women's sports.I think you the ones that should be worried are the men's Olympic sports.Um because those are the ones that you can drop.
Well, either way the protect doesn't require doesn't require So I I guess part of the reason I bring this up and and this is just me because I'm in the media like there are a lot of narratives thatwe receive from from folks on on all sides about this is what is happening.This is what the bill you know, and the bill is supposed to you know, fix the funding problems.It's supposed to protect women's Olympic sports.It's supposed to make ensure that all of the lower division and non-power conference schools can survive in the future.I asked Ted Cruz yesterday um because I'm a sports reporter so I interviewed Ted Cruz.That makes a lot of sense.Um I asked him about what exactly does this bill do for women in Olympic sports who are not at this $80 million threshold, who aren't required whose schools are not required to keep them, men or women, as Brian
said.And his answer was, well, this is going to make the broader landscape healthier.So, that will help.I mean, the those of you who are sort of in it day-to-day would probably be able to tell me whether or not you agree with that assessment or whether or not
a politician was dishonest with you?Can we report him somewhere?That's the
You don't even I don't even want to get into that.But, um, so anyway, that was something else that like I've just been thinking a lot about because I get on Zooms.I'm interviewing Randi Levine tomorrow.And there are these narratives about what this bill does fix and what it doesn't.And I think that in this webinar right now, we're doing a good job of talking about what it actually would improve and what it would potentially not improve.Um So, I I don't know if there are any thoughts there, um, while I take a second to go through the almost 30 questions that we have now because we have 30 minutes left of our webinar.So, we're going to save college sports in those 30 minutes.Um, and I'm going to look through Okay, so I sorry, I've been talking for a couple minutes, but just to answer more of these questions cuz I've gotten several questions about whether or not it's going to pass the
house.I don't know if anyone has thoughts or wants to take that, but I can take it if if that's okay.
Go for it.
So, probably not going to pass the house, um as things stand now because of several different things.Um, thing number one, the most Democrats are probably going to be opposed to this bill from a substantive perspective because the Congressional Black Caucus has come out against it.They're very powerful in the house.And because a lot of the labor organizations have come out against it.And Democrats in the house care very much about how labor organizations view them.Um, then we have House Republicans.I reported last week and then suddenly this morning there were a bunch of other reports, um, surprise, surprise, that House Republicans want to add a bunch of things to this bill, one of which is the no employee clause,which I know is very popular, especially amongst those outside of the power five.But I can tell you it is a political third rail.
And Ted Cruz can even be honest and tell you it is a political third rail.And Democrats are never going to agree to it.Um, they also want to add things like limiting the amount of international athletes who can be who can have roster spots.That's something the conservative part of the conference is interested in, um, in in adding.So a lot of issues that they have.Then we go to the midterm elections, which are in a month.And the the like essentially what I'm being told by sources is that like who are much more politically astute than I am, if the Republicans lose big in the midterms, that's going to be a referendum on President Trump.It's always a referendum on the current president, the current administration, any midterm election.Um, but if they if Republicans lose big, there's an expectation that a lot of Republicans are going to be moving away from the Trump MAGA agenda.
The Protect College Sports Act is part of the Trump MAGA agenda because Trump has endorsed it.So they are going to be less inclined politically to vote in favor of the Protect College Sports Act or they're just going to be feel less pressure when Trump calls them out in a Truth Social post for notvoting for it as he did to Florida senators last week.Um and so he may not have the power that he he has had over the past 2 years in getting House Republicans on board with legislation that he supports.Which is all to say that things completely outside of college athletics could determine whether or not this bill ever gets to Trump's desk.So I figured I would just take that question because I've been like talking to way too many politicians um over the last couple weeks.And if anyone has anything to add on that, please do while I look at some of these other questions to pose to
I mean I I would say I I don't disagree with anything you said.I just I I'd be a little less certain that those prognosticators are correct about that, especially given that, you know, something like 30 Democrats voted in favor of the bill in the Senate.So I get that the makeup of the house is different and some of the political things you touched on in the timing.I'm I'm just not People said the same thing about the Senate and then all of a sudden it passed 77 to 22 or whatever it was.So I'm just take that with a grain of salt is all I'm saying.
No, and I I totally agree with you and and the the House or the Senate Democrats signing on to the bill definitely gives like a lot of momentum that you don't normally have.And I actually originally thought what you did, but I'm I'm just like essentially especially with the power that the Congressional Black Caucus has in the House, which it does not have in the Senate.I mean, the House um you know, Democratic Caucus leader is Hakeem Jeffries and so if he decides to whip against this bill, particularly after the midterms, Democrats are not going to want to give Trump a win.Um and again, just disclaimer, this is not the merits or demerits of my politics.I'm I'm not going to discuss my politics.This is just the way that like, you know, this works is a lot of Democrats may and potentially against what is quote unquote best for the country as they often do.
They would rather tank something that might be for the greater good so that the Republicans don't get a win before they have to hand Congress back over to the Democrats.So, essentially that's just what I'm being told.Of course, it's all going to rely on what actually happens in the midterms which we don't know yet.
Panelists describe how the new eligibility rules affected athletes, compliance staffs, and roster planning. Frank also explains the Colorado litigation and related cases that made the eligibility issue so volatile.
Okay, so I do want to pose a couple questions from the Oh my gosh, you all write very long questions.Um Okay, so there are questions about the transfer and eligibility restrictions.And I do think that we should talk about the five for five situation um or the age-based eligibility model situation.Um and then I do want to end with the collective bargaining thing.What has been the experience we'll start with the the the folks on the school side and then we'll we'll go to the folks representing that on the athlete side about the experience this summer with the five for fivesituation, the way the NCAA changing the age-based eligibility model at the last second, whether or not that affected you.Um and while even in the short term it's caused a lot of chaos if you're that you're hoping in the long run this sort of narrower explanation for eligibility might help regardless of a Protect College Sports Act.
ATN, we'll start with you, then we'll go to Brian, and then we'll go to Ben, and then we'll go to Frank.
Yeah, so not a matter major impact, but a little bit of an impact.You know, you you look around your conference to see what is occurring, who has, you know, people returning or where people are going.And so that's the thing is that people that were already in the portal started looking at movement as opposed to staying put.And that's what people I think sometimes forget about the portal is opting into the portal doesn't mean I have to move.It just means I open up my opportunity to move.But if I miss the window, then I don't necessarily have that opportunity.And so as these came about and they kept going back and forth, you had people that had one foot in different places, you know, am I done with college sports or do I have an opportunity?It became tough.As you were talking about going into preseason, coming out of summer school, it was trying to figure out what are we doing?
And we opted in for the first time as a school.So now we're looking at the the roster caps and everything that we didn't have previously.And now we're looking at the landscape changing of, okay, are they in your cap or they not in your cap?Do you have somebody else or what does that look like?Okay, tell this person to stand down and you know, then you're looking at the movement and making sure that you don't have any tampering issues from other schools and you know, as your students were looking at opportunities tomove.So it was tough.We, you know, we didn't have large numbers of, you know, 50, 60 people trying to move in and out, but we did have a couple that were moving around and it took concentrated effort.So while you're also trying to onboard your new students coming in and our campus enrollments are all-time high, above 10,000, which is is large for us, but you're trying to get all those things taken care of plus make
sure you're managing the dynamic of, you know, five or six student athletes and wondering what their status is going to be and how you give coaches answers that we actually didn't have.There were so many unknowns and even your conference office is treading lightly because they don't know and no one makes wants to make a misstep.Cuz when you talk about giving an answer or you're waiting for the NCAA to answer and then someone's like, okay, I'm waiting so I can let attorney, no."It was that dynamic of okay, what does this look like?I'm waiting for answer from my conference, answer from my campus so I can talk to my legal representation so I can make a decision as to how I proceed on my behalf.And then oh, I'm going to stay or or I'm going to go.It It's been a whirlwind and we did get impacted with a with a couple of student athletes as they went through the process, but you know, it is what it is until we have something that settles it differently,
but we had an impact.So definitely we weren't untouched by it this summer.
Brian, what about you?
Yeah, we we had a couple of weeks there where it was like um when you go to your local pizza place and they have the open sign and it flips to closed.It was like 22 2022's eligible.Up, nope, they're ineligible.Nope, they're eligible.And it went on for like 2 weeks.And it's just another example of the collective action problem that we have right now in athletics without any governance in dealing with the court letting the courts on an ad hoc basis and for for state-based reasons to putit nicely, ruling one way or the other.It's just not It's not a way to run an enterprise.And the the the thing that really worries me in the short term and I see it being on campus right now is you know, I've been in this business for 30 years.Like I don't I don't I don't think of this as normal at all.
But what I worry about is if you've been in the business for 5 years now and you're a coach or administrator, this is starting to become normal.And what we're going to have after 3, 4, 5 more years is we're not going to have to just change rules, the entire culture of the of our enterprise is going to be at a place where we haveto now change the culture.And that's going to be borderline impossible to do.That's why I feel the urgency in a way that people who aren't on campus don't.I I see the young people coming into the business.I see the coaches leaving the business, the ones who are the really good ones.A lot of them are leaving.A lot of the good ADs are leaving.And I worry that the culture is going to hit a point of no return here where this is the normal.
It's all about you know, we transfer every year.Who cares if kids graduate?Who cares what, you know, who cares how this is tied to academics?We're not part of the university.And that worries the heck out of me because this thing's been Put aside the excesses at 25 schools or 30 schools.For the rest of us, this has been an incredibly successful program for 100 years.And I and certainly since Title IX.And I don't want to see that end.
All right.
Yeah.
Attorneys.
Yeah, I know I can I I'm not going to cut touch on the the class of '22.I'm going to talk about the the current student athletes that have come through our office and have talked to us about the the impact and the changing and and legislation.And I can't tell you the number of athletes who would have had a sixth year of eligibility um who would have had opportunity to submit a waiver, an extension of eligibility waiver, or whatever the case may be.But either they didn't know about the change, compliance, you know, compliance offices they're they're overworked and and and and they may have something could may have slipped through the cracks and they didn't get a a waiver in ona deadline then all of a sudden it's, you know, an extra year of eligibility is lost.And and um my concern moving forward, I completely agree that, you know, the waiver process was was broken and um and way too much variation and and variables and not enough consistency.
But my concern with the rigid five-year um structure is you know, you're in you're in you're a student athlete, you're in your last year of eligibility, you get hurt in the preseason.And you want to conceal that injury from your coaches, from your athletic training staff because you know, hey, I'm done.Or you're dealing with a mental health issue or whatever the case whatever the case may be.I do think there is some way I understand the NCAA probably doesn't want to be the decision-maker granting those those exceptions.Um you know, I think they you have a a third-party looking at these types of exceptions, but I do think that yes, there needed to be a change.I'm okay with the the more simple structure, but I'm not I'm not okay with those, you know, home run cases that a student-athlete has to decide, am I going to am I going to play this year or am
I is my career just done or am I going to just, you know, try to power through it?So.
Frank.
You're muted.
I don't have a um, real perspective on the administration of 5 and 5 versus anything else.I will note that the timing was extremely badly done.Um, I think that 5 and 5 with zero exceptions or 5 and 5 with a medical exception or something like that makes sense.But, the way it was adopted just before the NBA draft strikes me as and this is me being cynical, um, almost set up to give rise to uh, President Baker's quote of failed professionals coming back.People who have declared for the draft and don't get drafted and then they get another year of eligibility in litigation and all of a sudden they're failed professionals.So, I did not like the way it was done.I don't have an opinion as to the relative merits, but I I do think that it is a system that was in need of reform.
4 and five with waivers.Um and whether it's better or worse the way it got reformed pros who are inside in the chair need to answer that for me, not me as an outsider.
And what is the current status of the Colorado proposed class action?Because
Oral argument on October 13th, if you want to listen in, I'm sure it's available via Zoom.
Okay, and if anyone is unaware, this is the this was one of the revolving open open and closed situations that Brian was talking about because um this ruling came down on Friday night, I think.I was at dinner.
July 31st and just before an August 1st date, within an hour Baker was out with his failed professionals quote, even though none of our guys were going pro.And I say our guys because even though I'm not involved directly in the litigation, my my firm is uh involved.Um 10th Circuit reversed or granted a stay uh on the 21st, 3 weeks later.Uh and um now they've set oral argument for the 13th of October.
And this is one of the the only cases that would apply to a proposed class of all of these class of 2022 athletes.Just for anybody who's who's unfamiliar, that's why the one ruling in this case made so many waves on that night where I had already had a couple glasses of wine at dinner on a Friday night and had tocome home and um read a court decision and write about it.Um anyway.
Yeah.
That's why it mattered so much because this one particular case applied for like a week to every single athlete in the country in that um in in that age group.
Yeah, and the one other thing that I would say is it the same theories got argued on an individual basis in West Virginia.Um and a decision came out yesterday that granted an injunction to the four named plaintiffs there and analyzed a ton of stuff about circuit the the Colorado case.I won't say the 10th circuit case because the 10th is just uh a stay.So, if you're interested in trying to sort through all the arguments, that's a really good opinion as is um the original one.10th hasn't written anything beyond we stay until we can think about this in more detail.
Some great beach reading.
Amanda asks each panelist what one change they would make if they had a magic wand. Frank calls for athlete representation and a bargaining framework, Ben wants financial sustainability protections, Brian wants an antitrust carve-out for smaller schools, and Etienne wants permanent HBCU and media-rights protections.
Um so we have gone through between our original conversation and this conversation, we have gone through a decent number of the questions.We have about 10 minutes left.So, um oh, and to this final question here of that I'm was I trying to say that um that that House Republicans actually want to add to the bill a provision that would diminish the amount of roster spotsfor international athletes.The answer is yes, that that's what they're proposing.Um there's something called the Team USA Act that was just proposed last week.You can look it up and um that's essentially what they're proposing, which is a limit of 20% no more than 20% of any team's roster in a varsity sport can come from an international athlete.Um whether that mean whether that includes dual citizens, I'm not sure.So, but that's definitely something to keep an eye on.
Um So the last question to sort of bring it back to collective bargaining, but also just Brian, you've been teasing us with some ideas that you've had that you haven't So so I would like everybody as their finalquestion or answer to provide an explanation of one thing you really do wish would change.I'm just saying one thing because it's like I'm assuming Frank is going to talk about collective bargaining.Could be wrong.I actually would like you to to give a little bit of an overview there.But um if you don't have a thought about how to improve, you know, like a sort of like overall charging 30,000 ft idea, that's okay.I'm I'm just interested in one thing that if you could wave your magic wand and it would happen today it would happen.So but Frank, I do want you to talk about collective bargaining whether or not you would wave your magic wand and do it cuz I just want to provide a brief overview and then we'll move to the other
panelists.
Um look, the the problem in my mind is that this situation is unstable unless and until you have the athletes acting through freely chosen representatives involved in the process.And freely chosen representatives is essentially you know have the each team or sport elect a player rep.Player rep has the duty to talk with the athletes, figure out, distill their issues and preferences, and then feed into a broader path.That's the way it's done in the pros.Um and I recognize that it's difficult to do there to do in college with a bunch of different teams.But, that's why I think that the way to get to stability is to start with one sport, do some bargaining there, set up a template process that then gets rolled out into other sports as applicable.Some may never get there.Um some may just be traditional scholarship sports with nothing else and with some sort of a group licensing program that gives rise to additional revenue that gets shared with uh the athletes participating.
Um you know, there's a lot of different approaches, but I think that the first thing to do is start thinking about how do you get the athletes involved in this process in making their own in setting their ownpriorities, identifying them for their schools and conferences, and creating a sustainable system.I think that doing these sorts of uh systemic things on a um what I call a ranchers and cattle basis, which is an old NFL story about Tex Schramm before the replacement games telling Gene Upshaw, "Hey, you gotto understand we're the ranchers, you're the cattle, and we can always get more cattle."Um and trying to dictate the rules.That's not going to be sustainable and uh I don't think it's a wise place to go.I think that there needs to be discussion.It doesn't necessarily need to be collective bargaining or employee status.
Um I think that it probably starts on a single sport basis.You try and figure out um an employer that or I default into the terms that I use like multi-employer bargaining unit.You need to figure out a management side entity that can talk uh on behalf of all participants in the sport.And I think there's a lot of ideas about how you can do it.Um and so my wish with a magic wand is just change the mindset to let's talk about it.Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord, as Isaiah said and as LBJ uh had his Bible open to when he took the oath of office.Uh as opposed to where the ranchers and you're the cattle.
Ben, you're up.We're going opposite direction now.
Okay, sounds good.You know, I think one of the things that I obviously I I agree with what what Frank said and I won't touch on the antitrust part.I think one thing that I am still concerned about is the long-term financial sustainability of some of these mid-level, especially in in in smaller institutions and uh the pressures to keep up and to compete because at the endof the day um you know, coaches care about about winning, ADs care about winning.They care about a lot of other things, too.Don't get me wrong, but that is a driving factor and um and I would love to see um some sort of incentives in there for, like I said, long-term financial sustainability.If um and if you're going to have to make cuts to teams or make cuts to revenue share or make cuts to some of those resources, that that you're providing those cuts elsewhere, that you're trying to prove that
you're trying to do everything else before you before you make those cuts and reduce those those participation opportunities and and and resources.So, um I think that would be a thing I'd love like to see in the bill a little bit more, too.
Okay.Brian.Ideas.Ideas time.
Yeah, I you know, the collective bargaining thing requires a federal first would require a federal piece of legislation to allow bargaining across public across 50 states in public and private employers.So, you'll need two magic wands for that, but I only have one.So, my magic wand would be um would be used to create a carve-out, an antitrust carve-out for schools that have less than we could pick a number, 20 25 30 million dollars a year in outside revenue.The schools that have not really been the targets of these lawsuits, the schools that have not that are not making money on on college athletics and that are still tied to the academic model.And I think that antitrust carve-out could be provided in exchange for some durable ties to the academic enterprise um and to financial sustainability.That would be great for states, taxpayers, schools, fans, and athletes.
Okay.A 10, last word.Magic wand.
Woohoo!Magic wand.Um you know, for me I'd like to see um the HBCU and the student athlete voice um be true um when it comes to the governance structure and what we look like moving forward um and making sure thatit it's really heard um and not just a a placeholder.And then also um seeing the media rights that are being proposed um if they're going to be proposed, let them be more broad-based and make them permanent um so that is not something that is just grant funded, grantproposed through 32 or whatever that would be.Um it should be part of the fabric of what moves forward and what gets voted on.
The moderator thanks the panelists and reflects on the value of hearing multiple perspectives on the future of college sports. The webinar ends with appreciation for the speakers and attendees.
Awesome.Cool.All right, we have a few minutes left.I don't know if Julie wants to pop back on and give some closing remarks, but um thank you all for this conversation.Like it's it's very fun for me and I hope it was fun for the viewers to get multiple different um perspectives on like what is happening in college sports, what is happening with the Protect College Sports Act, wherewe could go, where we should go or shouldn't go.Um okay, I'm going to close this out.Uh but it's and and it's refreshing to not have to talk to sitting United States senators.No shade to any senators who might be viewing or listening, but I've spent most of the week talking to folks on Capitol Hill.So this has been fun for me uh personally.But um yeah, well thank you all again for for your time and and your expertise.
And I believe um like Julie said and and Becca said there will be a recording.And um yeah, it all of us are easy to find.If you have follow-ups, I did my best to get through as many of the 32 questions as possible and um yeah, thank you so much.Have a good rest of your day.