About five years ago, Christian Spears and a few of his colleagues in the athletics compliance industry were having dinner at a national conference when talk turned to the future of college sports. As the group discussed potential changes, one idea stood out—that one day the most-powerful conferences might break away from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and form their own group.
The idea, far-fetched at the time, is moving one step closer to reality as leaders of the association’s Division I Board of Directors put the finishing touches on a realignment proposal that is expected to be approved next month. The move would give the five wealthiest leagues more autonomy to do what they want—still under the same NCAA banner, but independent of the other 80 percent or so of major programs.
While changes like that play out publicly—in part driven by lawsuits and other challenges, including a player-unionization attempt and antitrust complaints that could do away with amateur sports as we know it—other interesting movements are happening in private conversations, as Mr. Spears, deputy director of athletics at Northern Illinois University, and dozens of other leaders are preparing for what might come next.
Longtime observers say they can’t recall a time of greater uncertainty, nor a moment when athletics officials have shown more willingness to break the mold.
“We’re at a tipping point, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it,” said Morgan Burke, athletic director at Purdue University and president of the 1A Athletic Directors’ Association. “But we need to be careful about creating an agenda before an agenda is ready.”
An Antitrust Exemption?
In recent weeks, The Chronicle spoke with more than a dozen people throughout intercollegiate athletics—including current and former athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and legal experts—and learned about some of the ideas under consideration.
While some of them may not materialize or may take years to gain acceptance, they offer a window into the thinking of major players during an important time.
Perhaps the most controversial idea calls for the NCAA to seek an antitrust exemption from Congress to help it constrain runaway spending in big-time sports while better aligning commercial interests with education.
The idea, which a reform group floated last year as part of a plan to provide new rights and benefits for players, has gained interest among university leaders in recent months, said Kirk H. Schulz, president of Kansas State University.
One impetus is the multitude of antitrust and concussion lawsuits facing the NCAA and its member colleges. Next month a federal judge is expected to rule on whether top-level football and men’s basketball players have a right to share in the billions of dollars in licensing revenue that the NCAA and its colleges generate.
Even if the NCAA prevails in that case, which involves Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball star, a dozen or more other lawsuits are lined up behind it, with many attempting to dismantle the association’s amateur model.
One way for the NCAA to protect itself, Mr. Schulz said, is to lobby for new federal regulations that would help define a student-athlete and give colleges more latitude in limiting spending. The NCAA and the Big 12 Conference, of which Kansas State is a member, have recently hired lobbying firms to work on issues related to student welfare.
“Legislation might be the only way we don’t bleed ourselves to death over the next 20 years,” said Mr. Schulz, a member of the Division I board and of the committee shaping the NCAA governance changes. “This is not ‘win one and it goes away.’”
In the past, many people rolled their eyes at the possibility of an antitrust exemption. But the idea appears to be gaining traction.
“I’m not an expert on this,” Mr. Schulz said, “but I’ve heard discussions among presidents and athletic directors and conference officials much more so in the past six months than in the past five years.”
Endorsement Deals
Most public discussions have centered on changes that would allow athletics departments to cover the full cost of attendance for athletes—a gap that, in some programs, is several thousands of dollars a year per player.
Colleges are also showing a greater openness to providing additional health coverage for athletes, including those who have recently left campus but suffered injuries while in college.
A handful of big athletics departments are flush with cash, beneficiaries of multibillion-dollar conference television contracts. But all of those proposed changes come with a cost, and the vast majority of programs already operate in the red.
Many programs began budgeting for additional scholarship assistance several years ago, when the NCAA approved a rule allowing programs to give athletes an additional $2,000 a year. (The rule was later overturned.) Another NCAA change, which allows colleges to provide players with additional food, goes into effect this fall.
For the first time, some college leaders have started to support another idea that was once considered taboo: allowing players greater flexibility to use their names and likenesses for commercial gain.
If the plaintiffs prevail in the O’Bannon case, as some legal experts have predicted, a court-ordered injunction could topple the NCAA’s restraint on player licensing arrangements.
But even without such a ruling, some college officials say they have discussed letting players sign endorsement deals.
“Everyone’s going to end up doing it,” said one athletics leader who did not want his name mentioned. “We just have to put players in a position to protect themselves.”
Although stars like Johnny Manziel, a former Heisman Trophy winner from Texas A&M University, may have national marketing appeal, marketing experts say the vast majority of athletes, even at the highest levels, would do well to attract local sponsors.
Car dealerships, bars and restaurants, or apparel retailers might be interested in signing deals with celebrity athletes, but would probably do so only in exchange for free meals or the use of a vehicle, said Mr. Spears, of Northern Illinois. “They’re not used to outlaying cash,” he said.
If such moves were allowed, those companies would probably enter into agreements with athletes just as they do with coaches or athletic directors, said Gene Smith, athletic director at Ohio State University.
“It’d be a pay rate,” he said, in which an agent would negotiate a number of appearances for a certain fee.
That would be difficult to establish, he said, as players’ popularity has the potential to change radically from when they first come to a campus.
“You come in with no persona, and that value changes over time,” said Mr. Smith, who emphasized that he was speaking just for himself and not his university.
Such deals could challenge the chemistry of teams, athletics officials said, as the elite players would probably be the only ones to pocket money.
“How do you look at other players on the team who may not have the public persona but who invest in your ability to have what you have?” Mr. Smith said.
Colleges would also have to monitor the time demands that such contracts placed on players—unless, of course, their relationships with their colleges changed.
Mr. Spears, a former president of the National Association for Athletics Compliance, said the various challenges facing the NCAA could one day give players a choice: Either you’re a student-athlete or you’re a semiprofessional playing for a college team.
While that scenario is unlikely to come about unless it is ordered by a court, it raises a series of questions: If players were allowed to sign licensing deals or negotiate for a salary in a free market, what role would education play?
Freshman Ineligibility
According to the NCAA, colleges provide some $2.7-billion in aid to players every year, a value that Mr. Burke, the athletic director at Purdue, said people should not overlook.
“We need to take care of cost-of-attendance and health and safety demands, but in 10 years we’ll still be arguing about some set of those items,” he said. “We can’t lose sight of the opportunities we’re creating. A merit-based scholarship truly has value to this country.”
On the other end of those scholarships is a mix of outcomes, however. As Mr. Burke sees it, colleges need to pay closer attention to the players they are recruiting and to do more to help them succeed academically.
His university recently evaluated the academic backgrounds of all NCAA entering athletes, finding a significant gap between first-year students who play football and men’s basketball and the rest of the athlete population.
“It looked like the Red Sea,” he said. “They are getting better, but it made me wonder: If you bring someone in and they compete right away and they’re behind educationally and you’re fighting to keep them eligible, how much are you helping the kid?”
He is open to having a national conversation about freshman eligibility. He is not interested in creating a cutoff for grades or test scores—"I don’t want to label a kid,” he said. “I don’t think it’s healthy.” Instead, he thinks each athlete should be evaluated on his or her individual needs.
Many football players already take a redshirt year, but that’s not as easy in basketball, where the roster size is much smaller. Sitting more players out their first year would probably require 10 or more additional scholarships in the two marquee sports, Mr. Burke said, and a commensurate number on the women’s side.
The additional aid would help teams have big enough rosters to compete, particularly in men’s basketball, where teams are allowed to offer 13 scholarships. (If three or four players had to sit out their freshman year, and one or two were injured, teams wouldn’t even have enough players to scrimmage, Mr. Burke said.)
At Purdue, 20 more scholarships would cost about $1-million a year—not an insignificant amount, Mr. Burke said, even for an athletics program with a budget of about $70-million.
“But if you’re trying to get people prepared,” he said, “you need to accept that they have the capacity to learn but they may need some extra time.”
