all aspects of athletics, but also college experience. it's not limited to just one. medical insurance, dealing with those questions academic priorities. we've talked about the time issue, support for title ix. it's been regardable what's happening under title ix in terms of the women able to participate in athletics, gain scholarships. many of those may not have had a chance for scholarship help and support. the vast majority of schools whether division ii or division iii, not in the top 65, that offer all these opportunities, it's something we want to preserve. it's something we want to improve. i think we have a president of the ncaa who is a reformer, known as that. that's why he was hired. he's taken steps already, and willing to take significant steps forward. now, obviously it goes to this

question, dr. emert of the 65. i was encouraged by your response to the chairman's question relative to their interest in addressing these issues. it's one thing to say they're willing to do it, it's another thing to do it. we wish you success but we understand that you're the proposal, you're the initiator, but they're the decision makers. so i hope mr. chairman over some period of time here, hopefully relatively soon, we can get a positive result from that effort. i think that's where the -- these major issues fall. but dr. emmerit. could you give us one more shot , but also to the root of the solution, and that is the top 65

which are the revenue generators. and we don't want to jeopardizes those that are not, and put them in a position where they won't be able to fulfill the level 9 supports that gists so many people the -- >> yes mr. chairman and senator coats, i think you're asking two of the most important questions. the first is a recognition that 100 or so years ago when the ncaa was created, it was as mr. branch pointed out, with some competent tuesday from the white house and congress because of the challenges in college sports. at that time, it was determined that college sports should be appropriately self-governed, that the universities themselves were capable of provides the right -- to make college sports work effectively for young men

and young women. we're at a point now where we're going to see yet again whether or not that self-governance system works. i have confidence, because i know most of these presidents as colleagues, and i know their interests and considerations and concerns that that provides me with confidence that they want to move forward on the agendas that i describe plus more in the coming weeks and months. now you think this hearing is a useful cattle prod, if you will to make sure that everyone understands that the world is watching, the u.s. senate is watching, and everyone is paying attention to what universities are going to do to address these real and significant issues. i think all those things combined give me some very positive belief that we're going to wind up in the right place in a matter of months. if not, we'll have another

conversation, and i have no dowd that you and your successoring will make sure for the things they need to and should be doing. >> i just wanted to note he had his tenth grandchild, and i heard he cry -- >> oh, i didn't tell her that. >> we love that. >> a guy who cries over his grandchildren is very cool. >> we like that. >> another form of cartel. >> i have -- i would like to submit an opening statement. your staff has that. >> so ordered. >> as a usc alum, who spoke with

pat hayden just before this hearing, i'm pretty sure we usually watch the trojans beat notre dame on nbc, and not espn. sorry, mr. branch. >> the seven points that you brought up of what you say are trying to achieve. if you have to talk about students having scholarships for like if you have to talk about men and women and having full and actual coverage of their costs is a weakness, because it's something that you don't have today. if you're talking about leading in the area of safety, you're not doing it today. if the ncaa is taking their lead, then they're not doing it today.

we can go on managing times and demands, it means it's not happening today. >> i'll share with you every once in a while, i call that lightning in a bottle. maybe it's --, careful. >> maybe the stars are aligning, i'm not sure but needless to say i agree, and that is that we do have jurisdiction in this conference over the ncaa. my question is if tomorrow there is a bill in the front of the united states senate that would disband the ncaa and for all discussions and hearings that spoke today, give me reasons why i shouldn't vote for that bill.

>> i'm happy to. the fact is we've been focused already on the things that aren't happening but the reality also is that an enormous amount of very, very good things are happening -- >> good, i want to hear those. >> that we haven't talked about. so when we focus on the issues of college sports the vast majority of them, as many of you have noted the vast majority of those issues are really focused on men's basketball and football, as it's played in the top handful of institutions. if you look at bcs football and men's basketball, you are looking at less than 5% of all of intercollegiate@4re9ices. you're missing 95%. for that other 95% there are very few of those challenges or problems that are occurring. indeed it is serving -- i'm not very good at math in my head, but if it's 95% of 460,000 students, let's say it's 450,000 or 425,000 students for whom

this is working amazingly well. they are graduating at a higher rate than the rest of the student body on their campuses. they're graduating as a higher rate of the rest of the students in the united states. yes, we can in fact have a very good learned discussion about how we measure graduate rates but if you use the federal rate, students in distinguish i greated 1% higher than the nonathletes on all of our campuses. if you look at men's and women's basketball, if you look at football, the graduation rates as mr. bradshaw pointed out have been steadily growing for more than 15 years now, each and every year. if you look at african-american men, the african-american men on any given campus have a 9% higher probability of graduating if they happened ton an athlete than if they're not. the fact is that student athletes make very good students. yes, there are many issues that our two former athletes have

pointed out very nicely that need to be addressed, but for the vast majority of students being an athlete also goes along with being a better student and more likely to graduate and also we believe, though the data is not well done and i just learned that the doctor is working on a study that i think would be very useful. we believe there's good reason to see that they are more successful in life as well overall. intercollegiate athletics, as you pointed out is a wonderful part of our south and provides extraordinary opportunities for the vast majority of student athletes. i focus my comments on the things i would like to see fixed. you just elaborated on them. no one is giving a guarantee -- most schools are not giving

guaranteed four-year commitments. usc has just committed to do that. a handful of others are looking at that but the reality is that almost no student ever loses their scholarship. >> wasn't that prohibited by the ncaa? >> it was. >> when did that change? >> well, we -- that's one of the things that i will will occur. >> in other words schools did offer four-year scholarships until the ncaa prohibited. >> they did and i have no idea why that was put in the rules. i have nigh own notions but i don't even know when that occurred. bill -- >> 1974. '73. >> no reason as to why? >> bill, do you know why? >> i really don't know. >> in recruiting, it's not a good idea not to give multiyear scholarships. >> i trust the historian. >> i would like to hear it. >> the historical record was that it was driven by the coaches at the biggest

universities precisely the 65 biggest schools, because they wanted more control over their athletes. they are driven to win. you have a better chance of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up and how much time he spends in the weight room so on and so forth. if you can yank their scholarship, then you have more control. >> but you can't do that anymore? >> yes you can. >> the ncaa in 1973 at the behest of the big school athletic departments and coaches put in a rule that you could not offer more than a one-year scholarship, in other words guarantees the coaching over that athlete. that survive for four years. they're trying to repeal that law so you could at your option offer more. >> excuse me for offering. it has in fact been repealed. it's one of the first things i insisted on. >> but it lasted for four years at the behest of the same 65 schools that are now proposing to do these reforms that you're talking about.

i think they're good but it's because they can afford them and because the gap has gotten so obscene, they to do it on their own. >> allow me, because this is such an important point. it has not changed. a student athlete right now who, for the reasons of a coach at any time can revoke that scholarship so that student is no longer able to stay at the university. dr. emmerit, that's are you right now, right? >> it's variable. >> starting last year, schools were provided the option. in other words this prohibition was repealed so that a school today can offer a multiyear scholarship, and many do. as i jest mentioned the university of southern california, and indiana, for example, have recently announced that that is precisely what they are going to do is offer full four-year scholarships.

many schools have been doing so since the prohibition was lifted. i don't know the extent to which it -- >> but it's not uniform. >> it is most certainly not uniform. >> it's not even the majority of schools. >> senator booker, your turn will come. >> do we need to remind him he is junior on this committee? i think somehow he forgot about it. >> i'm calling on senator mccaskill. >> thank you, i would like to sbefr the roll call of the institutions who voted to reestablish the one-year rule. afc testify voted in in 2011, that you could have the option of getting a four-year scholarship. the very next meeting there is an attempt to overrule that decision. they needed a two thirds vote to overrule the decision to go back to the one-year requirement. i think it will be very interesting for the members of this committee to look at the institutions that voted to go back to a one-year requirement in to 2012.

they need 62 1/2.. they got 62.12. to go back to the one-year. and i think you'll be surprised. it's counter intuitive. some of the institutions that voted to go back to the one year like harvard, voted to back to one year. yale was strong, they abstained. we had institutions like texas all wanted to go back to one year, but then there were smaller schools that wanted to go back to one year. one missouri school did, but the university of missouri did not. i was willing to offer this into the record and i was nervous when i got this, because i was afraid my university might have voted to go back to one year but it's very telling that in 2012 -- now, i guess my question dr. emmert, why wasn't this made public at the time? i think most of the universities would be embarrassed if they

were publicly called out that they were unwilling to give a four-year scholarship to an athlete. why did it take a request from congress for this roll call for this to ever reach the light of day? i would ask for this list to be made part of the public record. >> so ordered. >> well, the data were made available to all of the membership -- >> i'm talking about to the public. why didn't you put it on the website? >> i'm not debating the fact. i don't simply know whether it was not put on the website. the debate was very public. it was obviously very disputed case. it's a very interesting debate. i was quite stunned by some of the argumentation. one of the things i didn't mention about change that i anticipate in the coming weeks mr. branch.ed out something that's part of the olympic movement, olympic tradition now that in the united states that student athletes have to have a

very -- not student athletes. olympic athletes have to have a substantial vote and voice in the deliberations of the olympic bodies. i certainly advocate for a model much like that, and indeed the proposal that's going to be voted on in -- later in august will include full representation of students as voting members alongside the presidents and athletic directors on all of the legislative bodies, but we currently have student athlete advisory committees that we turn to -- >> doctor that's all great. >> if i might, ma'am the student athlete advisory committee advised against putting in multiyear scholarships, because they happen to agree with coaches that it was a good incentive for their colleagues to remain engaged. so some universities voted to overturn this because their very own student athlete advisory committee said, no no don't give multiyear scholarships, we like one-year scholarships.

my point is limply, ma'am, it was quite counter intuitive at many levels. >> fair enough i would like to talk to the students because i think they probably felt pressure. i have a hard time imagining any student -- >> i was quis surprised. in one of the responses to one of the letters i sent you you indicated that you provide an online title ix legal and best practices material and video classes. my question is, in that material do you make the recommendation to your institutions that they not be allowed to handle the adjudication of title ix complaints involving sexual assault against student athletes? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> well we've done a survey. the results came out today. i was shocked to find out that 30% of the division i, ii and iii schools allow their athletic departments to handle the allegations against their athletes.

now, we have a big problem with victims being willing to come forward. i assume you've read the long cover story about the investigation that did not occur with mr. winston at florida state. >> i have. >> that there was no investigation of that allegation. we will never know whether he was guilty or not, because nobody ever investigated because of who he was. if you're a victim and know your alleged will be handled by the@let sick department by any other student on campus handled in a different system, why in the world would you think the process was going to be fair? >> i read your data this morning, and i was both it sounds like equally surprised and dismayed by that fact. i think the concern you're raising is spot on. i think it creates, first of all, conflicts of interest. i think it creates the kind of

enormous apprehension that you are describing right now on the part of a victim as somebody who has spent most of his life on campus and in several jobs, had responsibilities to campus safety whenever i was a president, i had to deal with victims and family members of victims, and people who had suffered egregious harms. i think this is something that needs to be addressed. >> well, i think that my sen and about whether or not things are made public. i feel for you because part of me think that is you're captured by those you are supposed to regulate but then you're supposed to regulate those you are captured by. i could tell whether you're in

charge or whether you're a minute ona minion to them. the notion that you will say i'll go after this -- i'm -- you know, i don't sense that you feel like you have any control over the situation and if you have no control, if you're merely a monetary pass-through, why should you even exist? >> well, i think the -- the reality is that while the issue we are talking about here i don't have a vote on and i don't get to set those policies i can certainly set the tone on it and i can certainly be someone who voices a very loud opinion and says this is not right, this is inappropriate these are the conflicts that exist when you have a policy and a practice like this on on your campus. when i first took the job, the very first summit i held in indianapolis was a summit on

sexual violence a summit that led to the creation of a working group of experts, not college athletic folks, but of experts from across the country to create a working group and a think tank. we'll be issues the results of their work this summer i'm now thanks to your work gull to go and make sure this issue is addressed in that handbook, and i'm going to talk to the leadership at our very next meeting in august that we need to find ways that athletic depends are not responsible, because of all the concerns that you raise. >> thank you. i'm over my time. i hope somebody else covers the questions about young people from families that can't afford to even travel to see their children play in the games. >> yes. >> because meanwhile the

universities are making millions off their children but their parents can't even get a stipend to attend the game to watch their child play. there is something wrong with that scenario. and it's going on college catch puss across this country every single week. >> i agree with you. thank you. i want to start with -- which is the coach for the for the coach who has epilepsy. as you know, had a number of seizures, and the university of minnesota president said we're not going to get rid of him. our record has been rocky the gophers, they kept the coach on. he had to coach from a box he couldn't coach on the field because of his condition. during the entire season he coached from a box, and i was there when we beat nebraska with him in a box.

it was a great moment. it was a great story, but it does make me think, as i hear all of this that that kind of compassion, what was so captivating about the story is it kind of defied what had been become of so many of these big sports games and the cutthroat competition and how people were treated. so i think what you're hearing up here today is the hope that these are deliverables, these are things that can happen, when you talk about changing the sexual assault policy making sure the players have the health care insurance, making sure thif the time to do the internships. they aren't crazy hard things to do. that we have another hearing, whether it's six months from now or a year from now to check up on what's happening with these things whether they're at the

high school level. i know that senator tom udahl co-sponsored his bill. i know there's a lawsuit that's going on just your opinion of it but if you could talk about what's being done. >> i think it's a critical issue and most heavy lyily identified. it occurs in virtually every sport. first of all, as i had mentioned in my opening comments we

created -- when i first came into the office i was a business sprited to find there wasn't a cheef medical officer, so when we went out, we hired a wonderful doctor who is a neurologist. he's working unbelievably hard. we don't have good signs it's not as well understood as we all might think. so once they have done that, just this past handful of days they released the first ever consensus among the medical community on the treatment and the prevention of concussions, especially around football a new football practice guidelines around contact and a variety of other things. we signed with the department of defense about two months ago, an agreement to do a $30 million project. we're putting up $150 million, dod is putting up there 15 million to attract

longitudinally young men and women and try to get a legitimate history of the occurrence and treatment of the concussion. we're working with the youth -- all of the youth sports organization to try to get better practice guidelines working with the envelope to try to get coaching efully in people, and boys how to tack the -- so girl soccer coaches are saying we need to ban any heading until girls and boys are at least 12 years of age. so we're looking at trying to lend our support to those kinds of efforts. we're making -- pardon the pun -- headway but the factser we need a lot more understanding of where this disorder. i'm pleased where we are, and i'm proud. >> part of the reason why i stopped playing in the nfl to pursue medicine and go into a particular special of

neurosurgery was because i saw a lot of my teammates with early onset dementia or some of these traumatic -- things you often associate with several concussive episodes. i saw it in the nfl, and now as an aspiring neurosurgeon, i would love to add expertise to that discussion, but one thing i noticed in the locker rooms was a lot of my teammates fellow athletes, we want to be fast, right? wrept to be quick, nimble, agile, so the protective equipment we wear a lot of the guys would choose and select equipment that's lighter and maybe not as protective. so that may lead to more concussive episodes. i think education is incredibly important. and talk to us about the dangers of concussion. and then if you have a risk of

getting a second concussion, your likelihood of getting a third, fourth and fifth goes up exponentially. the pressures of trying to be on the field, trying to compete all at the same time as devin said earlier if you're not on the field, nfl coaches can't see you, you're not exposed, perhaps you lose the opportunity of getting drafted high and getting to the next level. >> it's just to perhaps change the culture, change the focus of big coalition high velocity hits, and the idea that that is a part of the game. it is not a part of the game. if you look at the rule book it's to take a player to the ground similar to how rugby is performed, but you see the highlights and exposure on the big high velocity hits where guys are speering into another player. that's what gets celebrated and i think that's the wrong path. as i said, hopefully in a few

years or so i can add more knowledge to this discussion but from my anecdotal knowledge it is an issue. >> i'll ask questions on the record of the internships of you mr. ramsey. i thought that was fascinating, on what a small proportion of the student athletes end up going into pro sports that's most likely not going to be their career. they have to have that ability to pursue and if it's supposed to be 20 hours, then we have to find some way to measure that and enforce is.

to me this hearing so far has been a lot of talk about a lot of things which have been around for an awfully long time which we all think should be solved, but they're not solved and i think there are very clear reasons for it, and that is decision-making is flawed, fragile and useless. florida, which has -- everybody recruits from florida they have a law that transparency how money is spent has to be made public, because they have a law. and so, you know, in the contributions and when ncaa comes in, only a small portion

goes to education and all kinds of things go to the stadium, that is all available to the public. so i commend them for coming from a state like that and i just think that's the path with so many answers which we just otherwise seem to be unwilling to deal with. excuse me. >> well, thank you mr. chairman. and i think a lot has come out of this committee hearing that should enable and help dr. emmert to continue with the reforms that he's trying. so much has been said let me highlight a couple. >> i happy to know, because i was mesmerized with mr. rolle as a player at florida state.

for hi to do the interview for the rhodes scholarship, which was in the south, on a saturday, his president t.k. weatherall had to get special dispensation so that they could get someone to donate a private jet for him that could fly him somewhere in the northeast when florida state was playing up here, and even so, he made it only in the second half. but the emphasis -- you know, that's something that's so common sense that you would want a player to interview for the rhodes, and yet it was a big deal. it shouldn't have been. the fact of so of of these players that are coming from

families that are dirt poor and they don't have the opportunities that others do it seems to my it's common sense we should have sometime ends or whatever you call it so it equalizes the playing field of the financial ability if those student athletes are contributing to the financial well-being of that university. so too with health insurance. that all to be common sense. if a player is hurt and that's a career-ending injury, the best of medical care ought to be given to that player and for it to last for some period of time in the future. and of course, consuggestions just add a whole other dimension to this thing. i thought it was very

interesting in another committee that i have the privilege of chairing, we did a hearing on concussions, and -- including professional athletes they would not recommend to their children that they play football. so times are changing. the ncaa has got to get with the times. so whatever this committee hearing has done to enible you as a reformer to get those schools the votes that you need to do a lot of these things that we're talking about the family travel why should they have to sneak around in the shadows in order to get money to be able to

buy a ticket to come to the game and where to stay in a hotel and so forth? i mean it just -- it defies common sense. mr. rolle, you want to make any final comment? >> sure. one thing that i'd like to say is that when you think about the collarship discussion a lot of players i was on teams with it was kind of like it was us versus them. we didn't feel like the ncaa was protecting our best interests was looking out for us one to see us succeed and thrive and flourish. it was almost as if we had to do everything we could to promote ourselves and better ourselves against this big machine that was dictating and ordering the steps we took. maybe that's not true. maybe it's just a miscommunication, maybe the

information wasn't getting disseminated well enough but that's the way we felt. another thing that's why bothersome today going back to the economic struggles a lot of my teammates come from poor areas in florida, and come as the first person in their family to be a college student. they don't have a lot of other money to lead back on, so that leaves them open to unsavely things, these are agencies, nfl runners who would knock on our dorm doors and say, i can take you out to a nightclub, i can buy you a meal, i can give you a suit to wear i can take you and your girlfriend out to eat and they accept it because they don't have much else then they become ineligible and they have no future because they have a black mark or just don't play anymore, so think end up back in liberty city or polk county, and it's frustrating and

discouraging. i saw it often. >> that is the exact example that we need to use. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. i apologize. you could have run for the senate ten years ago. >> i don't want to be disrespectful to senator blumenthal who i think was here before me earlier. no? >> i will ask my questions now only because i have to preside and if you would yield for five minutes, i would really appreciate it. >> i've already been put in my place once. i will yield. >> yeah, but you're bigger than i am. so -- [ laughter ] >> let me thank you mr. chairman, for having this

hearing, which very sincerely i think is a very important one or a significant for the future of academic institutions. i want to thank all of the folks who have come to enlighten us and thank you to senator nelson. and i want to begin by saying for what it's worth, i think the law here is heading in a very unfortunate direction. as dr. emmert and i have discussed, i think the law is heading in the direction of regarding regarding athletes at university more and more employees that is because of the growing asymmetry and energy, time, sweat, blood injury that is involved. that is classically the reason why labor law protections have

applied to individuals who on potentially are victims of exploitation. or construction sites. so i think the challenge is to dim minutic and truly -- and therefore the laws will move to and i say that with regret, because i too, as dr. emmert has articulated well value the student athlete model rather than the employee/employer model, but the more the reality is that athletes in effect

function as employees, the more the law will recognize that fact. my opinion is worth what you're paying for it. i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut, but i sincerely believe that that's the direction of the law. i want to first ask you, astonished and deeply troubled by the revelation that athletic departments on many campuses investigate -- i would like your commitment that you will work to change that practice as soon as possible and as effectively as possible. >> you have my commitment. i obviously want to understand the data more. i simply read a summary. i'm not sure what the facts are on those campuses. as i said earlier, the data that senator mccaskill's staff

brought forward was shocking to meivities i am shocked and outraged by you apparent practice on many campuses with the effect of revictimizing survivors who may be in effect victims. . i want to focus for the moment on health insurance. you know, individual colleges and the ncaa made billions on the talents of these young men and women and i want to ask you, couldn't they offer health insurance for athlete for a certain amount of time after they leave college? that seems imminently fair. so i would ask for your commitment that you will work towards providing for health insurance for these needs and injuries that may extend beyond their playing years on campus or

even professional settings, and i'd like to know what more -- assuming you are committed to that charge, what more you can do to encourage schools to provide this kind of coverage for its student athletes? >> yes sir. well, today the coverage that exists right now is provided either by the campus itself or by the student athlete's family, depending upon university policies at most of the high resource schools, they provide the insurance so the student doesn't have to. we need to do several things. wen, in my opinion we need to make sure there aren't co-payment requirements of a young man or woman especially from a low income family, and suddenly they have an injury with a $2,000 or $5,000 co-payment, since it was a sports-related injury, so we need to make sure we don't have many of those circumstances out

there. we have right now at the ncaa level catastrophic insurance, so if there is long-term disability issues. if there are injuries that require treatment over the course of a lifetime, there is a policy in place. we have some individual that have been on the policy for 20 or more years. we have taken a number of steps to make sure -- that policy doesn't kick in until you have $90,000 worth of bills. we need to make sure that, to your point -- i'm saying yes i guess, senator, you have my commitment. there are complexities in all of this we need to work through but i agree with you that no one should have to pay for an injury they suffered as a student athlete. >> thank you. i welcome and accept your yes to both the sexual assault and the insurance questions. i would ask further for your commitment to work with us on

sensible legislation that will impose a higher level of responsibility in both areas. thank you. >> certainly. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> go ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. first of all i'm grateful, we talked about this in my first days as the united states senator, this was an issue you wanted to cover and you saw my excitement for doing that. a lot of that stems from i was back in the '90s an ncaa division i football player. i want to first say it's very important for me to say, i probably wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for that experience. i am deeply grateful. i joke all the time i got into stanford because of a 4.0, and 16 yards receiving yards in my high school year. and had lifetime experiences frankly that i could never ever replace. it opened up extraordinary doors for me. so we could have a hearing that could go on for hours if not

days about all the good things that are happening with the ncaa so please forgive me if i'm not giving that appropriate light. what concerns me and what you and i have talked about chairperson for quite some time are the egregious challenges we have. i want to publicly thank dr. emmert, he was gracious not only to come here, which he did not have to do but took special time to come see me as a former athlete to sit down and hear my concerns. i was taken aback that you agreed with me across the board. let me just reiterate those for the record and make sure we are in agreement. so number one, you agree the big problem that athletes don't get scholarships to get a b.a.? >> yes. >> that is a big problem that we have athletes that pour their lives, 40, 50 hours a week and then end up having gone through their eligibility, but don't have a b.a. that is a problem? >> yes. >> you agree it's a problem that

we have athletes, often very poor coming onto college campuses restricted from working, they can't shovel driveways for extra pending money, can't meet the needs of travel can't buy toiletries, clothesing, if they're restricted from working, you know that's a problem we have to address? >> a minor correction not banned from working. they can in fact work and in many cases do but the biggest challenge is they simply haven't the time. >> so in other words they can't work because of whatever reason, you know that's the problem that the scholarship does not cover the full costs at the same time they're being expected whether by law or not to work 40 50 60 hours a week. >> completely agree. >> that's a problem. >> you agree it's a problem with the health coverage is inadequate and that we have people, many of whom i know and you know who have blown-out knees, and even though they have graduated now, they're having to go into the pockets for co-pays and the like to deal with

medical injuries that were occurred, really the root was the challenges they had when they were a athlete? >> i agree the insurance today is much better than most people think, but there's certainly areas that need to be closed. >> and it's costing some athletes thousands into their lifetimes. >> yes. >> you agree there's a real problem still with time, that as the two@lease at the end of the table, it's not just the practice time, guys, how many hours would you get your ankles taped, treatments? an hour? two hours? sometimes three hours, depending on how bad the injuries? we have athletes putting in upwards of 60 70 hours a week, that's a problem? >> a huge problem. >> you agree that there is a -- at least an issue that hag to be dealt with to improve with the issue of sexual assault it has to be improved in the way we investigate? >> yes, and i think the way we educate young men and women, and the way we educate people on campuses to handle those issues. >> right.

this we didn't cover so it might not be a simple yes or no, but in terms of the due process when a young man like mr. ram say, not even know had had to get a lawyer not even getting help, there are breakdowns in process that are not clear. could you say that process could be improved? >> it certainly could especially on most campuses, yes. >> i guess i just turn to you, mr. chairman not having to go through more rounds of deeper questioning, to just say clearly, this is my problem. this was a challenge for when i was an athlete some 20 years ago, and athletes after athletes are going through and facing what i consider the exploitation of athletes? let me be very clear. it is exploitation when you have an athlete working 60 70 hours a week yet still not able to afford the basic necessities. not just having your parents fly back and forth, but being put in

horrible situations, where they see their jersey with their name on it being sold making thousands and thousands of dollars, but they can't even afford to get the basic necessities of life. and if they try to sell their jersey for 50 bucks, they get penalize. that's exploitation of an athlete. to me it's exploitation when you give your body -- yes on the end, hound linemen do you know today that played with you that have gone through four, five six surgeries for their knees? a lot. and if they're going into their own pocket after given up their knees to make mills onfor the university, and then the universities aren't even compensating them appropriately, that's an exploitation of a college athlete that has to be addressed. if we have guys like was testified by the two gentlemen on the end, who i know this, because we spernt hours -- we

did the math, my teams, because so many players feel an assault on your dignity, that you're putting 70, 80 hours a week giving up internships, you know more about your playbook. playbook. i can still tell you stonebreaker. i can tell you more about them because that's what i was studying at night that you spend all of that effort and then your university is not in any what ensuring that you get a degree at the end in something like engineering or political science. that they're not honoring the fact that when you're working fulltime you can't finish your degree in four or five years. when they could lord over you the removal of your scholarship because it still happens. athletes are still exploited. they blow out their knee and if they somehow don't meet the mandates of a coach, they lose their scholarship and they don't get their degree. to me this is plain and simple,

the dark side of the ncaa where athletes are being exploited. and this is why i love the -- occasionally, and you use these words, dr. emrid you use this as a cattle prod. i wrote it down. i have to move quickly in the ncaa when there's money and reputation on the table. for example, you mentioned his name, shabaz napier says on the highest victory he says on national tv what we know athletes and what coaches know, is the truth. that some guys don't have the money to buy shaving cream. to eat at night. but he says it on national tv and within seven days because the shame and embarrassment, within seven days the rules changed and guys can actually

eat. >> but i'd like to -- >> hold on i'm already over my time, sir. let me give you another example. cam newton was through the same problems you were at the same time. his eligibility was being challenged, mr. ramsey. a guy that brings millions of dollars into a university and his adjudication happened quickly. yours did not. you're not a named athletes. so it didn't. so what i want to say in conclusion, mr. chairperson, and really, why i love the tail of respect branches here because similar books of my life about the civil rights movement. when there's a class of individuals who are being exploited and there's millions and millions of dollars being brought in and guys can't even afford health care, cannot afford to finish their degrees, then we have a problem. and i respect dr. emrid and said

we'll add that but where is the urgency that this has been going on for decades in america? i don't trust like the supreme court, when they said we're going to integrate schools they said do it with what? with what kind of speed? all deliberate speed and it took them a long time to get around to doing the right thing by people. these aren't just people. these are young people in theites of america. and we can't afford to wait for all deliberate speed. there's got to be some level of accountability for fast action on things that the head of the ncaa says is a problem. that next season when football season starts there's going to be kids suffering from the same list of unfair things that somehow, some day, is going to be addressed. so i think we need another hearing with the real rulemakers. college presidents lined up here and ask them how fast they'll address the exploitation of college athletes. mr. chairman thank you. >> dr. emrid, respond? >> i have a sacred obligation to

senator espn. >> thank with you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. let me just say up front on the issue of athletic departments investigating sexual assault allegations. that is ridiculous. you've got to get in and fix that right away. i'm a proud graduate of the penn state university. and it's obviously, we're -- it was so troubling and disappointing to see what happened at my university. i love the university but the athletic department is nowhere you happenedle these kinds of allegations so you got to fix that. walk out this door and fix that. what i'm troubled about when i hear the testimony today and i just need to understand, senator blumenthal asked about the change to an employer/employee model. we talked about compensation, potentially for athletes today. i don't want to see any athletes mistreated. i want them to be able to have a

quality of life that's important as they serve and get the education and be able to be an athlete the student athlete model. but as i think about for example, what the nlrb did in its ruling, i knownoeaknow know it applies to private universities but i think about the compensation model, what does this do in terms of the schools where we're not talking about the top athletes that may go on that are the nuvrevenue-again rating sports? what will that do to women's athletics? if we start down the road of a compensation model what h happen in the schools in terms of the schools that -- or the sports that aren't at the top where those athletes? you can sell the jerseys and make money but are still very important to student life? and when i think about title 9 in women and the opportunities women have gotten because of

title 9, if you're on scam puts and this suddenly becomes an employer/employee type of model, what is that do for women's sports if they're not revenue-again rating and how do we sustain them if this model changes? that's a big question but i'd like you to comment on it because the last thing i want to see is for -- i want to make sure that our @leaseathletes are treated well and certainly what you've done is really inspiring to see what you've done. and thank you, mr. ramsey, as well, for your inspiration and being here. but there's a whole category of athletes that were not quite at your level but are participating in college sports and it's been an opportunity for them to getten education and for women, as well. that are at your level but don't always generate the same amount of revenue and i want to make sure that women still have the

opportunity that they've had because of title 9. so if you could comment on that i'd appreciate it. >> i would love to comment on that. i think it's not a zero sum game. if some athletes are profit athletes who have a higher market value than the cost of their grand and aid then we should treat them differently than athletes who are not profit athletes. it's not either/or or they must be. if they're employees as the nlrb found, we should treat them as employees. that does not mean that college athletics or athletes and other sports, women or -- it doesn't -- >> can i tell you -- >> it's not an either/or -- >> doctor, my university said if the unionation rule was applied university of new hampshire, they feellike this will diminish the athletic program and it will diminish it for women and

nonrevenue-again nonrevenue-generating sports. i understand what you're saying but that's not what i'm hearing from other universities. >> i would say that probably a university president by the name of chicken little might have been the first one to say that. because the sky will not, in fact, fall. by denying profit athletes just compensation in the market does not preclude colleges and universities from supporting intercollegiate athletics as an educational opportunity. if they're employees they should have all the rights of employees. title 9 does not apply in an employee setting. >> i would like to see what mr. bradshaw has to say about what i just said as well. thank you. >> we probably don't have time but i'd certainly like to hear that model that works. i believe it's going to be devastating to all those student athletes including women who don't produce revenue. who aren't seen as -- athletes

or student who is create that revenue. i would like to see that model work because as we all know that's going to mean those that can afford to pay for that will. and those that can't won't. >> thank you. >> again, if i could reiterate and i appreciate the question and i'm trying to articulate it as clearly as i can. if the athletes are, in fact employees, then we have a moral obligation and an obligation under the law to treat them as such. if they're not it does not preclude them from participating. title 9 does not have to be held hostage by this because we're only talking about 5% of the know my time is up so we'll have a distinction. some are employees and some won't? some are student athletes and some aren't? >> they already are employees.

so by being opened and honest about what we're using and exploiting these athletes for, honesty is a very good thing. >> so as a woman athlete, if i'm not a revenue-generating athlete i'm not eligible for the employee/employer athlete? >> they already have that. >> that bholt they ares me. >> we refer to them at nooufr athletes and revenue sports and olympic sports. that's fine. it does not mean that if we compensate athletes according to the market that everyone else has to go away. that is not what has to occur at all. so if the universities find that that opportunity is very important, they will still support it. they will still support it. i see no way that women's

athletics or olympic athletics is going to go away. it's not going to happen. it just isn't. mr. chairman? >> dr. emrid, as i listened to kelly's questions about the cost structure and the likely impact of creating some unions or some employees and some not employees, they ultimately the cost structure itself would have impact in universities and have impact in athletic programs. i just wonder how significant that impact would be. and let me say this before you answer the question so you can think about your answer. to mr. suddall, good to have you here from columbia, south carolina, i would be remiss if you went to the right place, the gamecocks, ilike that a lot, being a south carolina fan myself. my story is very different than cory's story and these road

scholars on the end who have done very well academically and i'm proud to see your success off the field as well as on the field. i'll say my story i think, really plays an important part of why i'm asking the questions about the cost structure. i'm a kid that grew up in a single-parent household. had it not been for football i wouldn't have been able to go to college football at all. i played come football for a year and i earned a christian leadership 'scholarship and i realize that the responsibilities and the burden of before and after and the labs and the challenges i face and made a decision to go a different route but the fact of the matter is had it not been for the scholarship opportunity i would not be sitting here today because i wouldn't have had the opportunity to even start my education so when i think about -- and i went to a small school presbyterian college, so when i think about the cost structure of this conversation on athletes that are not in those top tier

schools, there's a significant unintended consequence i think we're looking at that kelly really brought to the surface that's hard to deny and, perhaps, even harder to figure out how to fix it. >> well, i happen to agree with you. i think that the implications of converting student athlete model to an employee/employer model would utterly transform college sports into something that doesn't begin to look like what it looks like today. the impact on the -- with all due respect i agree with the interpretation of all this. if you simply look at the definition of an employee as has been provided by one nlrb add

minimum administrator. if they work more as a student athlete than they are as in their academic work, then they're working. if they are subject to the oversight of a coach then they have a boss. i'm not a labor lawyer but that's in summary the definition of a student athlete. that would apply to every student athlete that has a scholarship. men, woman it doesn't matter. a woman soccer player. the difference between a woman's basketball player and a men's basketball player isn't that the men's basketball player works harder. it is president that through more or less talented. the difference is there's more people in the stand. that's it, in terms 06 their time commitment and their competitiveness, everything. one plays in front of a lot of people and one doesn't. the difference between a volleyball play or and a soccer player is exactly the same. the only difference is whether they're playing on tv or whether

they're not. >> yes, sir. >> so that completes the relationship. title 9 has nothing to do with employee/employer relationships aso that has nothing to do with a student athlete that is no longer an employee. it would be an irrelevant si for college sports. >> mr. bradshaw, a know you played sports i couple of years go. it says four or five years ago not 45. but my question is -- as you've had a lot of experience and you looked at this opportunity as well as the challenges that come with the opportunity from multiple angles what kind of progress have you seen over the last three decades or so as we wrestled with some of the challenges that are going to be future challenges and certainly our present challenges, sometimes we miss the progress that we've made along the way. >> certainly, all of us think we can do better. no question about it.

we spend most of our time talking about how we can be better and not patting ourselves on the back. i would say as a former assistant coach back in the day and head coach and student athlete, that it's night and day. the changes, the quality of physicians, the trainers, i mean we didn't know what a dietician was when we were student athletes or a head coach. the changes are enormous. they're compelling. and i think one of the things i would recommend is that you get some student athletes to talk to. there's a -- there's a balance. obviously there's outliers. there's some horrible stories that have happened and none of those is too many, whether it's assault or date rape or whatever it might be that i would love to see a panel of student athletes come in and talk about everything. a balanced panel of that. it's been significant across the line. and i'm retired now. i can talk about it very objectively and be concerned

about a college president or a faculty or a board of trustees. it's really an incredible profession we're in. and the changes that the ncaa is trying to make and again, mark's got to deal with votes. he's got to deal with the institutions. the college presidents. the board of trustees that pressure the college presidents. i think you got something when you want to bring the presidents in here. i think that would be a good move and something that could help everyone. but the changes that have happened, they are just eoh by leaps and bounds particularly in the last decade. >> final question, mr. chairman? do i have time for a final question? >> sure. >> my gamecocker bob southhall. as you look at the opportunity for collective bargaining and its impact on the academic environment realizing that most institutions or all institutions, primary objective is to cultivate an environment that's conducive for academic achievement.

how do you see the impact of the collective bargaining opportunity, though i have grave concerns with it personally on collegeol college campus us and its environment? >> i don't see that it would have any affect. >> good enough. thank you, sir. >> okay thank you. i want to make a -- and coach, i know the question you want to ask and dr. emrid has answered most of the questions and i know you feel a duty to ask the question. there's not going to be a second round. i'll make a closing statement. and then at 5:15 we'll be through this very long hearing. i want to say this. i have two impressions. one is superficial and the other, i think, is worrisome of this hearing. and i want each of you to either agree or not agree with me as

kind of your closing statements. that on one level this has been an opened conversation. we've brought up all kinds of issues. and those issues have been discussed. to a small degree or a large degree. but my real feeling from this hearing is that we haven't accomplished much. and that people have laid down their sort of protective -- i'm not talking about you two gentlemen. but that there's been a sort of a self-protection mode. either for one's self or on behalf of others. your point about getting the board of trustees and that would be kind of interesting. because they have a big influence over college presidents. but all i know is coming out of

this hearing i don't think i've learned anything particularly new except some anecdotes is that i haven't been hearing for 50 years. which is how long i've been in this business. and that the answers, you know, of course, there's progress. of course there's progress on concussions and of course there's progress in other thing. but is it in any way concommitant and effect of progress in what we should have been doing, all of us, including this committee and this congress, by not exercising our oversight rights? the head of the ncaa at one point said one of the first things i did was to make sure that -- and i forget the example -- but this was a statement -- i got something

done. i i don't believe that. i don't believe that. i think the system is rigged so that you are separated from the possibilities of getting something done except as you testify or you know you probably couldn't write articles. you probably would get blow-back on that. i don't think you have the power and i think it's i had constructed for that purpose. i'm cynical. i'm cynical about it. it's too easy to complain in senate hearings or any other forum, what progress has been made or of course, there's always progress that's been made but does it keep up with what needs to be done? and the answer is absolutely not. and this country is now so soaked in the culture ofespn and

other station and watching football and baseball, world soccer, all the rest of it. i mean it's -- i think it's -- my own view is it's undermining our values. i'll tell you one thing for sure. i think it's undermining our commitment to education. and dr. southall i think that you're talking about the different ways of jiggering the students who are not athletes, actually doing the better job academically. than those who respect to. it was said by the head of the ncaa that that was true and it was in his testimony. i don't believe that. i just don't believe it. now, i may be wrong but -- and then the different formulas you use. it was very interesting to me and something lied ike to know

more about. to me it's been in essence, an important hearing but not one that points to progress. and because i think everybody is going to leave this hearing and they're going to go right back. i'm not. i don't think senator booker is and i don't think a bunch of others are. go back to doing what they do. we got that one out of the way. nothing -- no harm there. nosh did themselves any great damage. nobody did themselves any great damage. congress doesn't usually follow through. congress doesn't get that much done. that happens to be true the last three or four years and then there's always the question of getting people from, you know, either trustees or heads of colleges and universities from states and then members here that are co-related to that might not want to have that happen. the world works in ways that protects itself. but this is a particularly ugly

one. the question of rape and having -- i mean i voted not to allow the department of defense to settle rape questions. i think that's ridiculous. it passed what i didn't want to pass passed by a margin, but not a great margin so, yes, that's progress. but what we wanted to do is get there. and i don't have a feeling that that we're on that path. yank this hearing symbolizes that we might be. but the substance is that we probably won't be. react to that. anybody who wants to and then i'll close the hearing. >> mr. branch i think you had some -- >> well, senator, that's a -- i

think that some differences have been -- and they're big differences in talking about the way things work and how to reform and the whole underlying structure. frankly, i think some differences have been diminished. i agree wholeheartedly with one thing dachlt emrid said a lot of these economic restrictions and the ncaa rules if they were vacated as or abolished or somehow, vacated for athletes as they were for coaches, it wouldn't make a particle of difference for 90% of athletes. and a small -- an athlete or a recruit at a small division 3 school would be able to ask for better health coverage or a salary and the university, the little school would be free to laugh at them and say, we don't do it. go somewhere else. just like if the picky lo player said, i want to march in the band. the schools with free to bargain

that way but it would make an enormous difference in precisely these 65 schools we're talking about where there was gigantic money if an athlete can bargain for better health care coverage and more time to study for a longer scholarship it would change things. right now the model is that the schools do that solely at their dispennation. the coaches in these schools want to give money out of their own pocket to the players like a tip, because they know they don't have enough money to eat. so a model that recognizes that these athletes are trying to manage two very demanding careers at once, that are in separate is spheres is a step forward but to me right now the least hopeful thing i heard today is we're looking to these same 65 schools that are the most commercialized as the engine of reform and the ncaa, i don't see it. they might give higher

compensation and more tips but they're the ones that created most of these problems in the first place. i don't think the big schools are going to do anything other than be driven more and more by the market and athletics and quite frankly, those schools exploit their athletes both as players and as students, because i go around to all these big schooling and the athletes tell me they're pushed into -- they're pushed into certain majors that are easy. sthar i they're not allowed to take certain courses. the sad thing to me i think that some differences are outlined and may be diminished. but i don't think see the big 65 schools as an engine for much reform in the future because their record doesn't show that. >> any other comments? mr. chairman? >> i'd ask before i know --

>> i know you want dr. emrid to reply to everything he says? >> i think he deserve es the opportunity to do that when someone takes an extra 2350i6 minutes and senator booker had every right and he was passionate about what he said but he leveled some accusations at the ncaa. i think at least they deserve to be able to respond to that. >> he'll have ample chance to do that. i've been bent over backwards annoyed some of my members to give you a particular break because you come from indiana where ncaa is headquartered and i've done that. >> i don't think you gave me a particular break. i was the first one here and that's the normal procedure. yet, i had my -- >> if you hadn't been you made it very clear to me on the floor you wanted to be able to be the first one to ask the questions and i said, it was okay. it was senator thune -- so i'm not going to bend on that. this is the closing statement and mr. emrid is free to answer

in any form he wants. he can write every member of the congress committee a letter. anybody else want to say anything? >> i've spent the last 15 years of my professional career examining intercollegiate athletics. after this hearing today i, like yourself, am very disheartened because i'm not sure that we collectively are willing to take a cold, hard objective look informed by research and informed by data at the collegiate model of athletics athletics. >> all right. that being said, i want to thank everybody for this. this has been a long and interesting hearing. everything is the first step as neil armstrong said and we got a

lot of steps to make and as others pointed out, the world is changing. you know, it's like that jackie robinson 42 movie. and the player comes in and he says -- i want to be traded. and then a couple of weeks later he comes back and says, i don't want to be traded. what about -- you willing to play with robinson? he said, the world is changing and i can change too. now, i think there's an element of that in all of this progress, has its own sort of duties and i think there's been progress. my question is in that for my entire adult life i've been hearing about this and stlees still so many of the problems are there and it call into question, i think, the way decisions are made and carried through within the upper ranks of the football and basketball community. and that's on my mind and i'm chairman so i'm going to say that and i'm also going to say

that that's the last thing i'll say and this hearing is adjourned.

we've been asking for your thoughts and whether you think college athletes should be paid.

taking a look at a few of your tweets, dx says no. they should consider college sports an intern shim for the nfl. and david tweets -- let the individual colleges, universities decide whether or not to pay their athletes. and on facebook, brendan says -- no. they receive scholarships to have their education paid for while i work as a pizza delivery driver for 35-plus hours a week. just to try to pay for my classes. madeleine wrooitites yes, they are moneymakers for their schools and very few go on to a career in sports and elizabeth says -- hell no. don't they receive a full ride? they get free room and board and all free meals so no they should not get paid. however if they get. ed the university should pay for all medical bills and expenses. you can weigh in and share your thoughts as

live coverage tomorrow about the flood of children crossing the u.s./mexico border. the health and human secretary testify before senate lawmakers about president obama's $3.7 billion request to congress to address the issue. live coverage begins at 2:30 eastern on thursday here on c-span3 and we'll continue to elicit your thoughts on both facebook and twitter. using the hash tag c-span chat. 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. flout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final

weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend hear the supreme court oral argument. united states v nixon as the watergate special prosecutor contests the president's claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. >> now, the president maeb right in how he reads the constitution. but he may also be wrong. and if he is wrong who is there to tell him so? and if there's no one, then the president, of course is free to pursue his course offer erroneous interpretations. what becomes of our constitutional form of government. >> sunday night on american history tv on c-span3. a discussion now with two entrepreneurs on the future of innovation and technology.

and mit media lab director and a cofounder and executive chairman of link-in discuss some of if changing trends in venture capitalism and the role of the internet in transnorming society. hosted by the churchhill club in santa clara, california this is 90 minutes. so i thought i would kick this off with the story about how joe and i met because it actually was a sympathying that ended up with the founding of linked-in. japan is getting slower and slower and i keep getting longer and longer dation when we're going to launch. can you figure it out and get japan launched? i said, let me find out what's going on and i discovered that we were doing the classic thing

that a company does which is hire lawyers to give us the risk factors. and each week the lawyers would give us a longer list of risk factors. and give us more reasons why trying to launch papal in japan was a disastrous idea and why we should possibly not do this. and i hoped that peter would literally go ballistic if i went back with that answer. obviously, the problem is we need an entrepreneurial person, not lawyers. so let me figure out the best person i know. i called every smart person i know. they said give me the list of the three best people you know who are entrepreneurs who understand japan and i can use to figure out this path. and i found on three of them it was all headed by this guy, joey i. the -- joey ito. and i said which of you have the best relationship with joey.

a great intro for me to meet him. >> that's because you didn't have linked-in then. >> actually, this is the kind of pattern that led to it. and it would be useful to people. and so basically, i got on the phone and said, look, joey, at the time started a venture firm which was an awesome type of -- wonderful name and -- it has to do with theory of humans and human intelligence and whatnot and you can look it up later it's not really relevant for tonight. but so i said i don't really have anything to really offer you because we don't do anything with venture but if you have something else, can you help us with this problem? and he said, no problem. ilike helping entrepreneurs. i think i got the right guy. let me check in where him and i'll get back to you. and he literally got back to us

with a guy that was like -- we got this guy arranged for us to get a letter from the japanese financial services authority that said -- you can launch in but if you don't launch japanese we won't judge you to be doing business in japan so you can start getting data and start having accounts and everything else so you can start getting the traction and start setting you product and you can work out the issues around that and that came later. it's literally the only yes in the world where we are got this kind of clarity. one of the problems in the rest of the world, by the way, mour so in the u.s. is that going afoul of banking regulation is what i called orange jump south time. criminal, not just civil. you could land at the airport and be put in handcuffs and get taken away so getting this right was really important and that was helpful. and he said, i'm coming to san francisco. you want to have coffee and that's how it started, told from my perspective.

so with that, with joey, i give him a much simpler intro. the one you heard is accurate. my intro of joey is college dropout, director of me, i.it media job. how does a college dropout end up being the director of the mit media lab? >> first of all, i never thought i would be in academia. my sister is in academic and i was surrounded by it. i dropped out three times. not just once. i tried. i knew very well i didn't want to be an academic. but -- >> and now you tell people that finish with a degree? >> i still think you should finish a degree. i had failed. but -- they called me. i mean, they asked very casually whether i would be interested and i said, well of course i'm interested in anything, you

know. but when they officially called me in, i had no idea whether i would be interested. but it was amusing enough that university like mit would even consider having a college graduate be the director of their lab so i went in and we just -- it was like two days of interviews. like 30-minute interviews with students and faculty and staff. and the quality of the conversation and sort of the energy was just addictive. and i realized that you know, it was this whole -- it's hard to blain is. that's what really converted me so quickly they decided i was the right person and i decided they were right and then there was a little bit of raised aye browse as the process made its way through the institute and they said, when i went to meet the dean the first thin she said was so i hear you don't have a degree.

but in the end, the person that what to okay it said, i don't see any problem and he's now the president of the university. m.i.t. has turned out to be super flexible. i think i'm the first nondegree holder in the sciences. i think there's probably somebody else in humanities. >> i told you this. one of the funniest part of that experience is i was one of your reference calls and they called me and i said, what do you think? and i said i'm trying to hire him. what else do you want to know? >> great. why do you think -- we're going to touch on this at multiple points throughout this. what's your beginning statement about why the media lab matters? why is it kind of the next ten, 20, 30 years in terms of what we're trying to create in the world? that's kind of more fundamental intellectual reason. i think you should start with

that. >> okay. so i think you're similar and correct me if i'm wrong. the reason i got into entrepreneurship a lot of it was to try to create impact and to disrupt -- i was in television and media and surrounded by big companies that were moving slowly and destroying value in my view. so to me creating -- >> the specific line was i'm an antimonth antimonopolyist. >> having come out of the large institutions where 20 something year olds didn't have any leverage internet companies was a great way to disrupt television and all these other things so as i was doing venture i saw some limitations to the kinds of things you could do. so there was a certain category a profile of a good fundable startup and you get to where -- and there's some room on the edges but fundamentally you have to have a certain scale and they

have to have a certain kind of cash efficiency and there's a certain thing about it but when i got to the media part and i looked at what they were doing there's a whole bunch of other stuff that was disruptive and important that wouldn't be venture funded. it could be venture funded eventually but especially in the exploratory phase. and maybe because the american who invests in it isn't the one that will benefit. because the ideas go out to the commons. it could be because it's super high risk. because it takes a long time or it could be because it's just -- there's a bunch of different reasons. i realized that just doing this venture wasn't going to solve this problem and there's another set of problems that need to be addressed. i knew a lot of smart people were here working on the silicone valley problem but i didn't see -- the media lab was weirdly unique and enough for me to realize that that was worth trying to get right. >> so let's -- this is

something -- one of the key things is innovation as part of the future. if you -- with the increasing moores law or this moores law and the increasing -- the question is -- classic lie you have to reinvent. so the question is where innovation and invention comings in. so there's universities and corporate labs and startups. the whole thing about startups is, startups have this one mission. focus the amount of capital. usually it takes invention and go to market with it. find out how it works and build a team around that and build something as a commons for the the platform and to do r&d and figure out something other people could use. that's not how that model goes. classically all the things at xerox and everything else from the history books be i think there's still some interesting place where corporate models have least-generated value. and up with of the key things is

to figure out how universities can do that. of course, classically, universities kind of go -- we're kind of separate and that's pure thinking and we're prat from those considerations and that's one of the things that's led to a certain amount of failurebility the invention and one of the reasons to prompt you, the media lab was like no we're actually building stuff. we're not trying to just kind of like scholastic research but things that bear on target. >> that was actually one of the only weird meetings i had when i joined m.i.t. the dean of science was a family friend. he called me into his office and said -- i question the scholarship in the media lab. i said, okay, so do i. best thing i've heard all day. but i think -- and that's the thing. most university departments are very focused on scholarship and then at m.i.t, which is more

applied than most places, it's an institute. you have labs that are funded through grants and then the academic departments which are about the scholarship and there's this healthy church and state kind of tension. but the media lab, they completely hacked the system by creating a lack that has its own academic program and we're primarily funded by panes. we have 80 companies that pay consortium membership. we have like three visits a day from companies and our students spend all day building and then explaining what they're doing to companies. so all day long they're getting input and the companies are hugely varied across the spectrum. everything from lockheed martin to hasbro to fox news to the knight foundation and google. >> right. >> and sum sung and ld and nokia and so -- what's interesting is that we get tons of commercial

constraints and real-world input. and then the other part is because we have this academic program that's wrapped in a lab, we have different faculty have different levels of this but we can, if we want to, have less focus on the scholarship, where the skoelcholarship comes as a by product of the impact rather than the doing been a byproduct of the practice over theory. i'm much more interested in things that work in practice but not in theory i rather than the other way around which is where a lot of people from other universities end up. they have a lot of theories that don't work in practice. i'd rather have it the otherway around. >> in theory, there's no difference in theory and practice. >> philosophy. >> yes. >> so let's briefly detour to how did companies interface? what does that look like?

>> different companies interface in different ways. the core model is we get $250,000 from 80 companies that makes up -- that's kind of the entrance ticket. for that you get a nonexclusive right to all our intellectual property which may be useful. we had some things be that's not our primary focus to generate i.t. when you're in a meeting anything that's generalted you know you can go back home and use it. we have a meeting where all 450 demos are running and you see all the research updates and things like that. but throughout the year the panes interact with us. and some companies fund students and projects but the interactions are interesting. this is sort of hard to say on the record but it's true. which is that because the core funding we don't have actual deliverables. they are not grants. so most of my students and faculty don't have deliverables. they are trying to create

answers to questions that the panes don't know to ask yet. we're trying to discover things they haven't thought of yet and the math works out to -- for the cost of a fully-loaded engineer your getting about 4 or 500 scientists working on 450 random projects they may not have value right away but some companies use it like hedge where everything is wrong. and they showed them. and the japanese company said, oh, maybe we should pivot. some of it is that. there's like ink for the kindle and the whole e book thing and they're looking at new trends. a lot of the wearable stuff came from the lab and some companies get inspired and do their own thing. some companies like samsung hire. the people that work on the watch, that team is ours. google hiretion a lot of our

people. so then some of the panes network with each other so it's kind of like a club. so different panes have did you have things and some companies come in when they have a innovation surge and when they're trying to be very innovative they bring in their senior management and for a couple of years they interact with us. some companies like toshiba have been members forlike 29 years. >> usually it's an interactive model rather than an outsource lab? >> we definitely don't do what you tell us to do. and. >> i think that's almost by definition for how it works. >> what's interesting is there's a certain category of company who just pays -- they come to the shows but it's like a brand thing. a couple of the senior people come and see it. they got some value out of it but they're the ones that fund the other category of companies that come and engage aggressively. and it's what's interesting is that it's a competition idea. if you come in with really interesting data stuntsds willdents

will swarm around it. if you come in with a really interesting idea you'll get a whole bunch of people working on it so the really kood ideas and cool companies get the sort of unfair share of attention. the cool thing about the cool about the media lab is it's not what you would normally think. an accounting company could get a swarm of students. we could talk about this later, what you have with that are hundreds of nerds interested in bookkeeping. that's what you have. so suddenly they want to know -- they want accountants. so for me what's interesting about looking at which companies are doing well with which ideas to see the variety of the stuff that kids geek out on. and it's also, like you know one of my students, the biggest nerd in the world he was hacking on a volkswagen on an audi and they got so excited by his two-day hackathon thing they gave him a free audi and he's

driving around fully insured and -- but i think it interesting. that's what's fun when the companies bring a toy in and they see the students swarm over it and i think the key point about the lab is that because it's undirected, no one asks permission. there's isn't a single power point or presentation. everybody just does stuff. so what happens is as soon as there's interaction, sometimes they come in the next day and the thing is done and it like, what do we get to do next? so that's kind of what injureyou're shooting for. >> let's shift to the views of the future. when joey and i were chatting about what things would be interesting to folks here one of the things i realized is that from a silicon valley perspective, looking over the media lab, one of the things you're saying that would be interesting for us to pay attention to? >> i think if you look at the

book about regional advantage about why silicon valley grew and the loop failed i think a lot of it had -- >> the loop is a road in the outside of boston. >> right. if but in the old days to create anything like a video tech system that -- it would have been the version of the web before we had the web, would have cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. in order to roll out something like that where you build everything from the bottom up it would have cost so much money that you would have had to really plan it. and so you'd have an mba write a plan and then a company or a fund would fund it and then you would hire the designers and engineers and build the thickng and whatever. as a cost of -- the internet made distribution collaboration cost nearly zero and moores law made communication nearly zero so suddenly what happens is the cost of trying something if yo

had done a google or facebook before the internet it we're been $100 million up-front venture. in these cases now you build the thing and then you raise the money and then you come up with a plan and then you go public. so it use to be mba, money engineer. and now it's engineer money, and then mba if you need to go public. >> sometimes. >> sometimes. and i love first round is mba is a service. but i think what's important -- that we know happened. what happened is that it pushed innovation out of the large institutions with the authority and the money into dorm rooms and startups and was venture-funded. that happened for software and internet services. i think that's happening in hardware where you're seeing that the prototyping costs and the manufacturing costs companies like pch international that basically do supply chain

are now opened for business for venture. all these guys are starting to open up manufacturing to venture. and then you've got interesting things like kick starter that completely changed the cash flow model that also screwed up startups. i form labs. i'm an investor in that. but i think they have $3 million in orders from kick starter before they started. normally that would be the big, weird, chunk of funding that made hardware companies like different than software so there's a bunch of parameters that have changed that make hardware ventures important and because you have to bultd an eco ecosystem of hardware and soft kwaer systems, so traditional companies that had hardware companies like hp's of the world, they are having a harder time than the people who think

like software. so the big software giants, facebook google microsoft, obviously getting into the hardware but and the east coast tended to be good at that. but also i remember a lot of funds in silicon valley used to say, we don't do hardware. >> semiconductors, but -- >> they used to do hardware, and then they started focusing more and more. software is a hanging fruit from a profile perspective. my question which is interesting, i think we have an advantage right now in boston on hardware, because we have a lot of that. but i see silicon valley picking up and catching up. but there's a similar dynamic with biotech. and i can go into the details if you want. but the cost of designing and deploying innovating on biostuff like memories and sensors and all kinds of stuff is going down.

that's another area that in the cambridge area we have a lot of expertise. it will be interesting to see it's not going to be exactly the same. generally the diminishing of costs pushes innovations to the edges, which changes the architecture of education. it will be interesting whether we collaborate -- there's a silicon valley catch up to boston -- i'm really interested in where that goes. >> you may want to describe a little bit of that work. and how the computation is being directly integrated. the cyber nettics is taking entirely whole new levels. >> this is -- this is partially the -- i use the word anti-disciplinary. you get a chemist and a biologist and mechanical engineer working together. that's great but it really doesn't work that well because

they all use -- they set their -- >> that's really funny. >> the science lab thing is funny, when you walk into -- they all are looking at the same thing, chemists biologists and businesses all set their micro scopes differently. and they use slightly different words. it's interesting, they look at the same phenomenon, they can't talk about it in the same way. when you're trying to do something. all of our faculty have a remission remission. trying to understand the brain. and what you find is -- in our lab, we have a guy who does computational optics and they do light field stuff. all those guy ss think about the same thing all the time. what you really want to

understand when you're looking at a brain is not how it's connected, but what's going on in it. it's kind of like a google map, a snapshot, right? but what you really want to know is who's driving and what are they thinking and are they drinking and are they going to interrogate the drivers? you need to look inside the cells to see what's going on we need to do realtime imaging. what happens in the next lap why don't we see if we can make a light field micro scope to look at the neurons to image the brain in realtime so we invented the first micro scope. the best computational optics guys in the world don't hang around with the best brain guys in the world. and now we're working on trying to build circuits.

there's a computational element to what's going on in the brain. there are researchers doing the pieces of it. what's funny, you're starting to see a hybridization. where the really interesting solutions require understanding electronics, computation, biology and genetics. but what's really interesting it's starting to become fungible. there's like -- so george churchill's main position -- you may have seen, he wrote a book. he encoded the whole book into a gene of a -- a gene sequence of a bacteria by recording base spares as memories you can sequence the bacteria which he made 7 billion of just so everyone could have a copy.

and you can read the book. an archiving company came to him and said can you do video? maybe. he's producing light that takes protein and stores it. they're going to create a biological system that can sequence the gene. his view is that a lot of computation is going to go into biology. we have other people in the lab to make computer chips. what gets really interesting is if you're trying to tackle a particular problem. let's fix the eye. there's a genetic approach which is what ed is working on. which is to use this expression to create a photo synthetically. a photo sensitive nodule that is

transferred there by a virus. you would inject it. we showed this works in mice. or you could build a robotic eye. or you could -- so -- but what's important about this is that it doesn't work when you have these disciplines. you really have to break the disciplines apart. the key is not to allow it to be disciplinary. this is not to bash the school, but just to contrast it. it is the d school is having people in their discipline come together in an interdisciplinary class, to learn and go back to their disciplines. we people use their disciplines. they may publish papers and things, they become anti-discipline airy. they're not allowed to say, i don't do that. everybody codes. you have areas of core

expertise, you're supposed to be fluid, and we have a degree program in anti-disciplinaryism. which is -- i went off. >> part of it i think you're right, the future of engineering, anti-and multidisciplinary. where it's interest greated, because the teeth, when you were talking about the nba. whenever i get talked, two negative factors as an investor two negative factors need to be explained away to make an investment. one is the nba. and that's because it's this creation element. it's what is the product that is the key to that. you need to have a multidisciplinary approach to get that. it's not elaborating a scholarship field. it's actually how do you solve this problem, and what are the different kinds of resources that cause the right conceptual

map and the right kind of technology that can address it. that's the reason i remember having my mind blown. oh, my god, you're tieing computational stuff directly to the mouse's brain? >> yeah, turns out brains throw off a lot of information. one of the really key things is -- it becomes a big data problem. it helps to have the storage unit of toshiba as a sponsor. >> exactly. let's go back to hardware briefly. one of the threads that's also interesting. obviously part of what's happening, the software is beginning to infect everywhere it's affecting biology, it's questioning direct hookups. do you build computers biologically, or do you build biological systems and how does that -- how do you affect

encoding and decoding the genome is part of this. it's also hitting hardware in interesting ways. we touched on it briefly. i think a little bit of what would be helpful -- >> one of the first places i'm trying to build a solid presence for us is agenda. and the reason is, last year january i sent a bunch of students along with buddy wong. he hacked the x-box and turned this machine that microsoft was selling at a loss in order to sell games, into a different machine and microsoft didn't like that and they sued. m.i.t. supported him. he's in debt to them.

all the factories that make aidid agency and iphone, they're all sort of aunts and uncles that are net woulded together that run these factories. and you can buy anything and you can talk to anyone and get anything done. every single kid whose parents have enough money, a successful restaurant or something, they make a cell phone. the cell phone design. you go down to the stalls, there's hundreds of cell foreign designs, like hello kitty and cars. kids in palo alto make websites. they don't sit there in the design room and design it. they sit there on the manufacturing floor and design on the manufacturing equipment. what happens is every week they come up with another model. they go downstairs, sell it at the stalls, compare it with