five-term iowa senator tom harkin. democratic congressman bruce braly debates jodi ernest live on c-span. sunday, rick snyder faces mark shawer. that's live at 6:00 p.m. eastern on sunday. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span3 is the home to "american history" with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best-known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief.

electric kwhur lectures in hist. and our new series, "real america," featuring government and educational films from the 1930s through the 1970s. c-spa c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local tv or satellite provider. tonight on c-span3, american history tv examines spying in the u.s. we'll start at 8:00 eastern with a tour of the cia museum and then a look at spying during a civil war. after that, german espionage against the u.s. during world war ii and later a conversation about the soviet and u.s. spies of the cold war. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition award 150 prizes toe at thing $100,000. create a five to seven minute

documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. the senate commerce committee over the summer held a hearing on college sports programs. committee examined athletic scholarships, campus sexual assaults and the issue of whether student/athletes should be paid. among the witnesses the head of the ncaa, college athletic directors and author taylor branch. this hearing will come to order, and i want to thank all of you very much for coming here. you're a bit squeezed in there. but water is on the house, so be comfortable and be glad.

college sports has an absolutely extraordinary position in the culture of our country. not only do college sports inspire incredible fan passion across the country, but they provide a very important way for young men and women to, as is written, do athletics as an avocation and get an education. we're going to talk about that today. many young people, however, athletes has provided an avenue to college which otherwise wouldn't have existed, and it's important to understand that. college athletes and athletics are rooted in the notion of amateurism. and the history of that is very interesting and important going back to the founding in 1906 and all the rest of it, going back,

actually, to the greeks' concept of amateurism. playing college sports is supposed to be an avocation. students play college sports for the love of the game, not for the love of money. that is the ideal. but many people believe this notion of college sports is being undermined by the power and the influence of money. i remember a meeting i had in my office with the three top executives of espn, and it was one of those meetings in which i didn't say a word because they just went around in circles, each talking about what a great business model they had, how they had control and power that no other broadcast system would ever have, and how thrilled they were with it and how they were going to make it even stronger. there is a growing perception that college athletics, particularly division i football and basketball, are not avocations at all.

what they really are is highly profitable commercial enterprises. they believe that. critics of big-time college athletics say the goal of these programs are not to provide young people with a college education but to produce a winning program that reaps financial rewards for the athletic departments and their schools. it is not, however, about the students. they're part of what generates the money. it's about capturing the billions of dollars of television and marketing revenues that college sports do generate and will generate even more. colleges and universities say that these revenues benefit college athletes and their student bodies at large. but i think we have to consider whether the lure of such riches could corrupt the basic mission of athletic programs. winning teams get higher payouts

than losing teams, which creates a strong incentive to win, an incentive which land grand public universities and others are more than happy to follow. and win at any cost. much of the money is often funneled right back into those sports programs in the form of multi million-dollar coaching salaries and state of the art facilities, many of them paid for by the taxpayers to perpetuate the cycle of winning. i think somewhere in my reading here, about $48 million of all the $900 million that nca gets from, you know, their broadcasting, march madness and all the rest of it, a very small portion goes specifically to academics. but even that's hard to figure. because nobody has the figures.

they work for them, they make the decisions, he carries out what they want, and yet i think the discussion is how does he carry out what they want? what powers do you have, mr. emmett, for actually carrying out what you think is a good idea? you've been president of three major universities at different places, and i would think that your passion for education would need to show itself. athletics to me are meant to serve schools and their public duty to educate students, not the other way around. that's the way it's always put forward and that's the way it should be. dr. mark emmert is here to present the position of the colleges. some declined to come here, but you did, and i'm grateful for that.

i believe you were put at the helm because you have incredible credentials, and i think we all appreciate that you're tremendously compensated. i think i'm just very skeptical that the ncaa can never live up to the lofty mission that you constantly talk about and which is written and printed in speeches and statements and responses to penn state this or something else that. you know, the mission -- nothing comes before education -- is always there but the actions don't appear to be. i don't see how the ncaa will ever be capable of truly making a safe, good education experience for students their number one priority.

i want you to tell me that i'm wrong, that i am wrong, and that i'm particularly wrong about the future. but i'll be a tough sell. i think we believe that the ncaa has largely been left to its own to determine what forms are appropriate and how to accomplish its mission. as we continue to learn more about what goes on at some major universities and colleges, we want to know if the ncaa is seriously considering how college athletes are faring under this system. not just living as they do, but injured as they often become, wracked by poverty. if they don't do well, maybe their stipends are cut off, and is there a mandated four-year scholarship. all these things are put at play. how are young men who strap on their helmets on a football

field in front of 100,000 paying customers, how are they doing? how are our young men who lace up their shoes and play basketball for march madness which consumes the nation and is deliberately spread out over a long period of time so that no kid 10 years or older can ever hope to do any homework because there's always basketball on. are colleges and universities living up to their end of the bargain and providing them with a good education? are these young athletes entitled to any of the billions of dollars that are reaped from their athletic services? and when young men and women are putting their bodies at risk, do they have adequate health insurance? i don't know. i don't know.

and i never go into a restaurant or barber shop or anything without asking, do you have health insurance, and i know the answer is going to be no. i care about health care, and i'm unhappy when people who work in places where they don't make a lot of money don't have health insurance. do the schools and athletic leagues minimize the risk of concussions and injury, and what about if they're injured before graduation, can he or she finish out their studies or does the scholarship run dry? well, a couple months ago, we all heard the deeply troubling comments of chavez napier, the most valuable player in the 2014 basketball tournament in the midst of a tournament that generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the ncaa and its members, mr. napier talked about how sometimes he didn't have enough to eat during college. how did the college benefit mr. napier the nights he had to go hungry? you can look at that two ways.

there he is, trying to pick out a sensational example of a famous athlete and turn it into a large problem. i'm not trying to do that, i think it is a problem, and the whole sense of giving students a safety net and a sense of confidence that if they don't turn out to be as good of running backs or point guards or whatever and they don't make the team or they're let off in their third year, are they dropped? do they get scholarships or what happens? i don't know. the title of today's hearing is "promoting the well-being and academic success of college athletes." i want to have an open and frank discussion on this subject and i'm going to try my best to. the ncaa has the same goal as i do. dr. emert is going to tell us that the ncaa's goal is to promote sports as a means of achieving academic excellence.

today i want to explore whether the ncaa is fulfilling its mission. of fraudulent academics, we still hear too many tragic stories of college athletes that have absolutely nothing to show for the services they provided even though they helped generate millions and millions of dollars. this subject is often discussed, but i'm here to tell you that if, per chance, the democrats should control the congress next time, and nobody is quite sure of that -- john thune has one idea, bill nelson has another idea -- and you. yeah, okay. and that i think we want to continue this. we want to make this a continuing search of this oversight committee. we have jurisdiction over sports, all sports, all sports. and we have the ability to subpoena, we have the ability to -- we created a special

investigations unit. we're very into this subject. i personally am, i think our members are. so this is a part of a process here. so i'm going to have some tough questions for our panel as the ncaa and its members schools, are they simply a legal cartel? have they become an enterprise which is no different than the corporate witnesses who have appeared before this committee or is the ncaa truly different? and does the 100-year old organization in fact have the best interests of our college athletes? large questions and important to be answered. i turn now to my very distinguished ranking member, senator john thune, from the state of south dakota. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing today, and i want to thank our panelists for

the opportunity to examine the current state of collegiate athletics. and, like you, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses, including the president of the national collegiate athletic association is how the members of its institutions are fulfilling the commitments made to our collegiate student athletes. i'm an avid sports fan. i know all the members of this committee are as well. as a former basketball player in high school and college and a proud father of a daughter who competed at the division i level, i certainly recognize the participation in organized sports not only requires physical and mental strength but also teaches teamwork and other skills that serve you throughout life. however, the college student athlete is and should be a student first. colleges and universities must remember and prioritize their academic obligation to student athletes. as the popularity of college sports has grown, particularly the popularity of college football and men's and women's basketball, so, too, has the profitability of many collegiate

athletic programs. in the current environment, the stakes have been raised both for the student athlete who wants to succeed and for the university that has a financial interest in winning games. increasing revenues for some games and the broadcast rights for football and basketball games have become more common. revenues from ticket sales are also significant and alumni want to see their teams win and may be inspired to contribute to winning programs. as question ool hear today, the ncaa is a driven organization whose stated mission is so integrate collegiate athletes into higher education so the education of the student-athlete is paramount, end quote. however, some institutions appear unable to balance the core academic mission of the university and the commercial considerations that often accompany college athletics, particularly in high-profile sports. many feel the commitment to the student athlete is falling short. another point of contention involves athletic scholarships

and whether the practice of offering annual as opposed to multi-year scholarships unfairly puts the student athlete at risk of losing their scholarships as a result of poor performance or injury. while multi-year scholarships may benefit student-athlete, they may disadvantage smaller schools that can't match certain institutions. we will hear from ncaa's most vocal critics today. while i'm sure today's hearing will highlight important issues, i hope we will not lose sight of the positive impact that amateur athletics has made on the lives of countless student athletes. we must remember that college athletics is not just about football and basketball. the director of athletics at the university of south dakota recently shared the interviews he conducts annually to evaluate the school's athletic program from the vantage point of the athletes themselves. he underscored two stories that stood out from this past year of

interviews with athletes. he reiterated how a sophomore diver at usd recovered from open heart surgery to qualify for a dive at the ncaa zone championships, a feat that would not have been possible without the work of a dedicated training staff, academic support, coach, team, and family. he also noted the moving story of a sophomore swimmer who leaned on friends, family and teammates to help her through the tragic loss of her father who passed away early in the season. with this support, hannah was able to return to the pool and achieve lifetime best times in all of her swimming events at the summit league championships. as the usd athletic director put it these are examples of what college athletics should mean. if you strip away the money, the charter flights, you're left with student/athletes who often have to overcome personal, social, economic, athletic adversity all just to

compete. but they frequently do wit passion and determination that makes us all proud end quote. that's from the athletic director of the university of south dakota. recognizing challenges exist. it's my hope the ncaa, member institutions, the student/athletes themselves and other stakeholders will seek solutions to promote the education, health and seek to preserve amateurism. this is an area where congress can provide a forum but the solutions are most-likely to come from those most directly involved in the education and development of student athletes. mr. chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. i look forward to hearing and having an opportunity to question our witnesses. thank you. >> thank you, sir. what we're going to do now is we're going to hear the testimony, and then both senator mccaskill and senator booker, both of whom are sterling and wonderful people are going to get very, very angry at me because i'm going to charge into

the regular order and i'm going to allow senator coates to ask the first question, which violates all the rules of the committee. >> well, i'm mad. >> that will make you a better questioner. >> as the most junior member on the committee, the rules will not allow me to be mad at you. >> mr. chairman, for what it's worth, i was under the impression also we were one of the first to arrive and be able to ask questions in order. i arrived at 2:10 so i could be first. i didn't want to put you in a bad spot or breach the rules either. >> you never do. you're wonderful. you will ask the first questions after the two of us. and thank you for being here, and don't be nervous. okay. i mean it. >> all right. >> it's a wonderful opportunity

to say what's in your heart and on your mind. >> yes, sir. first, i want to thank you and the committee for inviting me here today to share some of my experience and knowledge on this very important subject, very complicated subject as well. i've had many conversations with fellow student athletes on this issue about the current role of student athletes today in this giant scheme of collegiate athletics. we often walk away from those conversations with more questions than answers. so i'm hoping today is a first step towards answering some of those questions and providing some context and some clarity to this discussion so that we can see our student athletes receive maximum edification in all aspects of their person, be it a student, an athlete, a leader, and a man and a woman. that's very important to me. i want to start my remarks by the genesis of my story. my parents are from the islands of the bahamas, my brothers are as well.

i was born here in the states and raised. i went to high school in princeton, new jersey. after high school days if princeton, i would go over to the university and i saw the big poster, a statue and trophies of this guy who became my hero. his name was bill bradley. he was just a rockstar, in my opinion. the epitome of what a student athlete out to be, best player in college. nba hall of famer, u.s. senator, and a rhodes scholar. the first time i heard those two words rhodes scholar fin-in the same sentence. once i finished high school in princeton, i had 83 scholarship offers to go anywhere and play football. i was rated the number one prospect in the country by espn. i decided to go to florida state. when i got to campus the first thing i did was go to the office of national fellowships and tell them that i wanted to be a rhodes scholar like my hero, bill bradley. if he did it, i wanted to do it as well. three years later i was fortunate enough to earn that scholarship. then i went to meet my teachers and tell them i want you to

increase my educational capital, so i can be an outstanding pediatric neurosurgeon like another of my heroes, dr. ben carson. now i'm a senior medical student hopefully able do that in the future. lastly, i went to my athletic coaches and football coaches and told them i want them to equip my body and get me ready for a career as a national football player and fortunately i was able to be drafted by the titans and played for the steelers as well. now it may sound like my story is pristine and ideal and used as the poster child for which you want a collegiate athlete to have an experience. i will say my story is quite rare and unique. some people call it an anomaly. outside of for cory booker the last major division i football player to win a rhodes scholarship was a guy named pat hayden. he played at usc and los angeles rams as a quarterback. there are very few student/athletes who i have had

contact with who had the same infrastructure that i had, the family support and the foresights, not come from a broken school or family able to engage if their college experience and maximize their team. many more of my teammates, family, friends, struggled in the college environment, they struggled mightily, struggled economically, because with the scholarship stipends they received they became, believe it or not, the main breadwinners for their families and had to send some scholarship money home to take care of their immediate and extended family. they struggled academically as well. a lot would go through this academic machinery and be spit out at the end of that machine left torn, warn, and asking questions. really no directional guidance on where they should go. no purpose, no idea of their trajectory, sometimes it didn't behoove their interests, the degree they earned. i open we can shed light as you said chairman rockefeller we are pouring energy and exposure and highlighting on tv the life of the athlete.

but i believe we are still falling a bit short of edifying and improving and augmenting the aspect of the student, the person the man, the woman and the philanthropist and the leader. i believe if we do that, we can see these athletes at major schools be productive, but more importantly, be productive leaders and citizens that go on to be industries of men and women and really have an indelible impact as they go on to their future. thank you for having me here. i'm looking forward to having this discussion. >> thank you, very, very much and now devonn ramsay. welcome. >> good afternoon. >> devin, right? >> good afternoon, chairman. members of committee. it is an honor and a pleasure to have this opportunity to be in your presence and share my story

and thoughts on the current state of college athletics. let me first thank you and your staff for the invitation. i was born on december 8th, 1988, in red bank, new jersey. my mother has always valued a strong education and sent me to a blue ribbon school that covered kindergarten through eighth grade. i excelled in the classroom and participated in athletics. i had the opportunity to go to the lawrenceville school right down the road in princeton. i played against myron. i decided this would be the best academic and athletic environment for me. i would go on to a successful academic and athletic career graduating in 2007 and decided to send sign my letter of intent to go to the university of north carolina, chapel hill. what drew me to that school was not only its esteemed reputation as a top academic institution but a new hire of coach davis.

it showed that the university had an all-around commitment to excellence. now my career at the university of north carolina has been one filled with adversity. i've undergone five surgeries, been through three head coaches, and been asked if i wanted to transfer or take a medical red shirt. however, despite all this, i managed to be named an offensive starter four out of the six years. and named the top three in my position. but most importantly, i got my degree in public policy, concentration in business. i moved back to red bank, where i would pursue my hopes of making an nfl team. however, i didn't make the team at tampa bay. now in the summer of 2010, two of my teammates have violated ncaa rules and attended a party thrown by sports agents. the university launched their own investigation into the

matter and discovered several counts of academic fraud. before we played clemson, i was told to report to one of the conference rooms and was brought in for questioning. before the questioning began i was told that this conversation would be recorded and was asked if i needed a lawyer. i thought i had been called in there to see if they could find any more leads for the investigation. then they asked -- they began to ask me about my definition of academic fraud, academic dishonesty and plagiarism. and that's when they brought out a two-year-old e-mail correspondence between myself and a tutor. in the e-mail i asked for help with grammar and overall help in the paper. she replied by adding four to five sentences to a two and a half page paper. they asked me if this is the exact same paper i turned in.

however, i couldn't remember, since it was two years ago. in the following four weeks, i was held out of competition, they sent me to the university's honor court. and the attorney general of the honor court said there was no evidence here. they had no final version of the paper, it wasn't submitted electronically, and i don't know. most people don't keep papers from two years ago. as i was being held out by unc, an official from the compliance office proposed that if i were to plead guilty after being held out for so many games that the ncaa would allow me to play. at this time, i believed that the un contraction's compliance was very well versed in ncaa policy. however, it was a shocking blow when the ncaa then ruled me guilty of academic fraud, which strips me away of my remaining eligibility and tarnishes my reputation. after coming to the realization that unc was more concerned with

penalties and losses of scholarship than protecting one of its own, my mother and i set out to find lawyers that would hopefully have my best interests at heart. however, none wanted to stand against the ncaa or its membership. thankfully for me, a state supreme court judge reached out to my mother after reading an article she had been involved with as an observer. without this, i would have no one to turn to. as we went through the appeals process, which was possible with the endorsement of the university of north carolina, the leadership at unc once again wanted me to take a plea for a reduced sentence, however, the judge, my mother and i needed to have my name unsullied. by going back and looking at the original interview, given the lack of evidence, the ncaa overturned its ruling and reinstated my eligibility. unfortunately, the first game of the next season i tore three ligaments in my knee. after receiving a sixth year of eligibility i was not able to

return to the field of play until my final game, which i probably participated in two plays. now one of the things that was -- looking back at my career that i wish i could have partaken in, was in internships. a few of my friends from lawrenceville went on to play at the ivy league. and with their -- it's not as demanding as, you know, high-level division one football. they were allowed to go in, you know, pursue other things during the summer. and upon graduation, some of my friends got great job offers. an internship gives you direction, teaches you valuable life lessons and prepares you for a level of professionalism. at a competitive football school, completing an internship is virtually impossible. in order to receive your stipend in the summer one must be enrolled in a certain number of credit hours. i've seen several teammates try to manage and they ended up

quitting because they were exhausted. only one was able to count toward his credit hours and he wasn't required to go to any classes. at the university of north carolina, football players where r one of the only teams allowed to participate in camps to hone coaching and create another source of income. discussion about the documentary "school, the price of college sport," head coach of the george mason men's team paul hewitt says his team has to do an internship before they graduate, a mandatory one. i think this is a great practice. if the ncaa truly wants to develop student athletes and prepare them for success on the field, then they should mandate that all athletes complete an internship. the reason it needs to be mandated is because of the existing culture that demonizes

any activity that won't directly help a program. players that go home for a semester -- and i have friends that have done this -- are labeled as selfish and lazy and almost a canneser to the team. but, in fact, he's just going home. he's still working out. he's just trying to improve his own value to the likelihood that he's not going to make the nfl. i've come to realize that there's a void in college athletics. the ncaa as an institution no longer protects the student athlete. they're more concerned with signage and profit margins. as i was called to the initial meeting with investigators i wasn't aware i needed to defend myself against my university and the ncaa. and as a student, i lacked the resources and knowledge to defend myself against an 80-year old institution. my family lacked the resources to hire a lawyer, and if i refused to be interviewed i would have been held out until i testified. in the ncaa, college football players have a very small window of opportunity prove our worth

to the nfl. therefore every game you miss is a lost opportunity. there needs to exist an entity that quickly and effectively advocates for the student athlete. i was extremely fortunate that judge orr reached out to my family. but it terrifies me to think of those who may have their el jibltd unjustly taken and their reputation damaged. the student athlete has a short career and is an amazing renewable resource. and because of that, the ncaa is able to take advantage of naive young men and women. there needs to be an institution that has no ties to the financial being of the universities or the ncaa. allowing the ncaa to continue to intimidate athletes and schools is dangerous and unfair. to quote a famous roman poet, "who will watch the watchman?" thank you for the opportunity to be before you today. >> thank you very much. appreciate it a lot. mr. taylor branch is from baltimore.

he's an author and has written what i call five best books ever written in terms of my own reading preferences about the civil rights movement and the development of it. and he's also an expert on this subject and has written extensively. we welcome you, sir. >> thank you. thank you, senator rockefeller and senator thune. thank you, members of the committee, guests, sports fans, educators. i'm honored to be here. the subject for your hearing today, college sports and the well-being of college athletes, is full of minefields and myths. i hope to offer some summary comments for possible discussion under three headings -- amateurism, balance, and equity. amateurism has become the distinguishing feature of ncaa governments. it is identified in official

pronouncement as the bedrock principle of college athletics. the ncaa bylaws define and mandate amateur conduct as follows -- student athletes should be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived. student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises, closed quote. that's ncaa bylaw 2.9. the word "amateur" reflects conflicted attitudes about money, youth, and the purposes of recreation. its broad ambivalence has opened a muddled flexibility in public habits, allowing the united states to become the only nation to develop commercialized sports at institutions of higher learning.

even the major universities involved, which were founded to uphold intellectual rigor, ignore the multi-billion side industry built on their undergraduate students. confusion and mythology begin with the word itself. dictionary synonyms go from a enthusiast or devotee to a bumbling dabbler or rookie, meriam webster gives a scheming tone -- the people who run that company are a bunch of amateurs. this ambiguity gains reenforcement in our uniquely designed popular world of sports where fans are encouraged to cheer and boo without thinking objectively. the ideal of ancient greek amateurism has always been misleading because the athletes of olympus actually competed for huge prizes.

aristotle researched well-rewarded champions back through the records of the earliest olympic festivals. modern scholars have confirmed evidence of high stakes victory and loss. ancient amateurism is a myth claims david young. purists who refuse to mix money with sport did not exist in the ancient world, concludes one author. and victor's monuments boast of success in the cash competitions as openly as they boast of victory in the sacred contests. golf legend bobby jones is enshrined as the model amateur and gentleman who declined every championship prize he earned. his reputation fits the true definition of amateur, which is derived from the latin meaning lover, specifying one who chooses to pursue a skill out of subjective devotion rather than the hope of financial gain. some noncollege sports still allow athletes to declare and

renounce amateur status. significantly, students themselves call themselves amateurs when they invented intercollegiate sports after the civil war. until 1905, students retained general control of the new phenomenon in everything from scheduling and equipment to ticket sales. they recruited alumni to construct harvard stadium in 1903 with zero funds from the college. neither the faculties nor other critics assisted in developing athletics from the man who became the father of college football in his spare time. the ncaa, created in 1906, slowly transformed the amateur tradition inherited from college athletes. its board declared a goal of total faculty control as late as 1922, and the weak ncaa organization could not hire its

first full-time staff member until 1951. after that, however, burgeoning revenue from television contracts allowed ncaa officials to enforce amateur rules as an objective requirement rather than a subjective choice. this is problematic because attempts to regulate personal motivation and belief commonly run afoul of the constitution. even if internal standards were allowed and somehow could be measured, ncaa rules contradict the key requirement that college sports must be an avocation or calling, which comes from vocare and vox. ncaa rules governing the players by fiat, excluding them from membership and consent. balance -- checks and balances are required for sound governance. and the ncaa structure is unbalanced in at least four basic respects. first, ncaa enforcement suffers

an inherent conflict of interest between alleged violations in football as opposed to basketball, because the organization lost its television revenue from college football and is almost wholly dependent on a sole-source broadcasting contract for the march madness basketball tournament. second, the ncaa structure creates a false impression of common practice between the very few schools that aggressively commercialize college athletics, roughly 100 to 150 of some 12 ncaa members. the vast majority of schools with negligible sports revenue. and amateurism stretches all the way from a cross country race to notre dame football on espn. third, the, in the classroom they transfer highly valued expertise to students. but this traditional role is reversed in big-time sports. there, athletes deliver highly valued expertise to the

colleges. this distinction is basic and fundamental to your committee's stated purpose of promoting educational integrity. college athletes are or should be students in the classroom and competitor players in the athletic department. they face multiple roles and careers like many americans, but their conflicting demands cannot be managed or balanced unless they are squarely recognized. the ncaa undermines this logical separation by insisting that sports are a supplement for a hybrid creature under its jurisdictino called the student athlete. universities implicitly concur by offloading some of their academic responsibility to the ncaa. fourth, the ncaa and its member schools strip rights from athletes uniquely as a class.

no college tries to ban remunerative work for all students, and no legislature could or would write laws to confiscate earnings from one targeted group of producers in a legitimate enterprise. on the contrary, universities sponsor extensive work-study programs and student citizens everywhere exercise freedom to market skills everywhere from bookstore jobs and pizza delivery to the entrepreneurial launch of facebook, unless they are athletes, for college athletes alone, the ncaa brands such industry unethical. equity. basic fairness requires attention to the rights and freedom of participants above the convenience of observers. applied to college sports, this principle would mean that no freedom should be abridged because of athletic status.

while i am neither a lawyer nor a professional economist, i find ample historical evidence that experts object to collusion in the ncaa's regulatory structure. in microeconomics, the prominent textbook, the authors make the ncaa a featured example of an economic cartel, which reaps anti-competitive profit. the courts have agreed in two landmark cases. in ncaa versus board of regents of the university of oklahoma in 1984, the u.s. supreme court struck down the ncaa's exclusive control of college football broadcasts as an illegal restraint of trade. overnight, the major football schools won the freedom to sell every broadcast their markets would bear without having to share proceeds through the ncaa. we eat what we kill bragged one official at the university of texas. in 1998, assistant coaches won a

$54 million settlement along with an order vacating the ncaa's $16,000 limit on starting salaries. the compensation of assistant football coaches has cracked the $1 million barrier since then, with salaries skyrocketing even in nonrevenue sports. by 2010, the university of florida paid its volleyball coach $365,000. thus, the supervisors of college sports have won economic freedom, and they enjoy enormous largess from a distorted cartel marketplace that now shockles only the most vital talent -- the players. to reduce bargaining power by athletes, the ncaa creates and enforces rules regarding eligibility and the terms of compensation. ncaa officials, of course, steadfastly assert that their whole system is devoted to the educational welfare and benefit of the college athletes.

football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people. ncaa president mark emmert, sitting near me, vowed when he announced ncaa sanctions for the recent scandal at penn state. such professions must be reconciled somehow with ncaa rules that systematic deny college athletes a full range of rights from due process to representation to the presumption of innocence. these rules can turn words on their head, like alice in wonderland. the ncaa's bedrock pledge to avoid commercial exploitation of college athletes, for instance, aims to safeguard them from getting paid too much or at all, rather than too little in the ordinary usage of the word exploit. to use selfishly for one's ends as in employers who exploit their workers.

in closing, i would suggest one hopeful president from the past work of your commerce committee. this is not the first time that the governance of amateur sports together with the education of college athletes has presented a daunting tangle of vested interests and passions. 50 years ago, an early bonanza in sports revenue ensued a bitter feud intensified between the ncaa and aau which controlled access to the olympic games. aau leaders accused and quote, unpatriotic ncaa of sabotaging u.s. chances to win medals. they claimed that college athletes already were paid and therefore not amateurs at all since the ncaa approved athletic scholarships in 1956. ncaa officials retorted that aau coaches were parasites on college training facilities. these two sides nit-picked and boycotted, sabotaged and disqualified each other until president kennedy enlisted no less a mediator than general

douglas macarthur to foster u.s. hopes for the 1964 tokyo olympics. the squabbling exhausted macarthur who recommended blue ribbon commissions that brought proposals eventually to this committee. your predecessors shaped what became the olympic and amateur sports act of 1978. one key provision of that law secured for active athletes a 20% share of the voting seats on each of 39 new olympic committees. though small, this representation soon transformed amateur sports. granted a voice, athletes tipped committees in the united states and around the globe. marathon races, then tennis tournaments recognized the right for players to accept prize money and keep their olympic eligibility. new leagues sprang up to popularize volleyball and other sports with sponsors professional competitors were welcomed in every sport except

boxing. by 1986 when the international olympic committee expunged the word amateur from its bylaws, the modified games defied every prediction of disasters. indeed, most people scarcely don't notice the change. some of you helped recognize success in the revised ted stooevens olympic and amateur sports act of 1998. this example suggests a good place to start. wherever possible, make athletes true citizens, rather than glorified vassals. in college sports. where markets extend into college sports, make them fair and competitive. recognize the rights, uphold the rights of college athletes. give them a voice and challenge universities in turn to make wise, straightforward decisions about the compatibility of commercialized sports with education. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. branch. and i want to be very critical of myself.

because what -- the general rule around here is that witnesses speak for five or six minutes, but i failed to make that clear. and so we just got -- >> says five minutes right here, but i wasn't watching. sorry. >> but anyway, just keep it to five, six or seven minutes. that would be the best. and i thank you for your testimony. and it was my fault. mr. bradshaw, who is former director of athletics at temple university. we we will couple, sir. >> chairman rockefeller, ranking member thune, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good afternoon. to promote the academic and well-being of our student athletes is much preektd. it's an honor for me to represent the 1600-plus institutions and 11,000-plus individual members of ncaa and athletics administrators where

practitioners of our enterprise and representing in excess of 50,000 student athletes across all three ncaa divisions as well as the niaa and junior community colleges. ncaa serves as professional association for those in the field of enter collegiate athletic administration. provides educational opportunities and serves as a vehicle for networks, advocacy on behalf of the association. my career in higher education includes positions as assistant baseball coach, head baseball coach, director of alumni and before retiring last year, 31 years as division i athletic director at three universities. my athletic career includes three years as student athlete, one as a walk-on, two years as professional baseball in washington senator where two broken ankles influenced a career change and masters degree. i trust my ankles are safe with you washington senators here today. these experiences prove valuable to my subsequent 36 years as

division i athletic director at la salle, depaul and temple universities retiring from this wonderful profession one year ago. during the five decades of my career, i've seen significant improvements in the commitment by universities to the academic, athletic and personal experiences of student athletes. from state-of-the-art academic support services, elite coaching and training, athletic facilities to the much improved equipment, safety requirements and emerging ncaa permissive benefits, our student athletes have never had it better. and yet we know we can do better. we as educators are committed to maximizing and developing the enormous academic and academic potential our student athletes bring to our universities. in assessing the well being it's important to examine our universities' performances in trends of academics, financial security, health safety and life skills.

academics -- over the past 20 years, graduation rates by any metric have drastically improved for student athletes. in 2013 the graduation success rate measure for all student athletes in division i was 82%, including 71% for division ifbs fastball participants and 73% for men student athletes. among the reason for this dramatic improvement in graduation rates are increased ncaa requirements for initial eligibility and continued eligibility. and universities' proactive responsibility to the academic progress rate metric instituted by the ncaa to measure individual teams, classroom performance each semester. health and safety -- while universities strive to use best practices, we can never do too much to ensure the health and safety of our student athletes. the prevention and detection of concussions, for example, particularly in the sport of

football, remain as one of the highest priority for every athletic director at every level. best practices that have become common place include hiring strength and conditioning coaches, dietitians and nutritionists. required seminars for all student athletes to discuss drugs and alcohol, assault, date rape and gambling. as well as comprehensive regular drug testing and follow-up. financial security -- as we all know, the real cost to attend college has risen above inflation for years, causing many students to have massive debt upon graduation and proving too costly for others to even attend the college of their choice. currently, division i student athletes receive $2.1 billion in athletic scholarships and this total will continue to escalate with anticipated ncaa legislation covering real costs of education combined with the annual increases in tuition, room and board, books and fees. in addition to the real value of

an athletic scholarship and according to the u.s. census data, a college graduate on average earns $1 million more over a lifetime than a nongraduate. other financial benefits for student athletes including university's health insurance, ncaa catastrophic insurance, multi-year athletic grants and student assistance funds available through conference offices. the vastly improved conditions afforded student athletes have resulted in unprecedented performance in the classroom, on the playing fields and in preparation for life. few other campus activities or clubs produce such natural diversity as intercollegiate athletics bringing together young men and women from various races, religions, nations, beliefs with the common denomination being athletic profiles. less than 1% of division i student athletes will participate in professional

sports. this reality underscores the value of a college education and education that many young men and women could not afford without an athletic scholarship. in our profession of enter collegiate athletics, student athletes are the center of our universe and most important people to consider in our decision making. if we ask ursz before allocating resources, building facilities or hiring coaches, is this decision in the best interest of our student athletes, then i believe that answer has helped us arrive at the best decision. any of your questions are most welcome. thanks again for inviting me to be with you this afternoon. >> thank you very much, mr. bradshaw. now, dr. richard southall, university of professor at south carolina, director of college sports research institute. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak for you today. my initial draft of my comments

was only 35 minutes, so thank you for giving me the advice. as direct other of college sport research institute at university of south carolina, my comments today are not off the cuff remarks but informed by sociological, organizational and economic theories as well as empirical studies. in drawn extensively from ncaa documents that reflect not only my work but numerous colleagues and scholars. while i'm well aware there are distinct sociographic differences between ncaa division as well as between nablg revenue and olympic sports, my testimony today will focus on how within big-time college sport ncaa members have sought to protect their business interests at the expense of the well-being and academic success of ncaa profit athletes. for several decades the ncaa was aware that as the scale of both revenue generation and spending continued to grow, there is a general sense that big-time athletics is in conflict with the principle of amateurism and

increased governmental and public scrutiny is likely if graduation rates don't improve in underperforming sports. consequently in 2003, the ncaa embarked on a two-phase organizational rebranding strategy that was part of an aggressive public and media relations agaenda that addresse critics and provided an alternative to what the ncaa described as the dogroll of cynics. first the ncaa created a term of art. collegiate model of athletics as a better understood definition of amateurism that isolates the principle to the way in which college athletes are viewed without imposing its nation on revenue-producing opportunities. notably, division i revenues have more than doubled since 2003. tellingly, internal ncaa documents reveal protecting the collegiate model is nearly by definition the primary focus of the office of the ncaa president.

concurrently in an effort to maintain the perception of a clear line of demarcation between college and professional sport, and offer support for the effectiveness of its new academic progress program, the ncaa developed the academic progress rate, or apr, and graduation success rate, or gsr. since 2003 the ncaa has consistently sought to utilize these rates as proof that big-time college sport has one clear focus -- education. however, several items are noteworthy. one, neither the federal graduation rate, ftr, mandated by congress nor the ncaa's gsr is perfect or inherently a more accurate metric. they utilize different sampling and statistical analysises to example different cohorts. in short, they are different graduation rates. two, the gsr consistently

returns a rate 12 to 25% higher than the fgr. as far back as 19891 the ncaa knew that removing eligible dropouts, in other words, transfers or athletes who leave school in good am deckic standing from the gsr cohort would result in a markedly higher success rate. three, since there is no comparable national level gsr for the general student body to report gsr and fgr data simultaneously in press releases or data set tables invites inappropriate comparisons and fosters confusion among the general public. while the ncaa national office has sought to protect its collegiate model, academic support staffs labor within a system that too often depends on an special talented emission process, focuses on maintaining eligibility, and results in athletes often clustering or

being steered to majoring conducive to their practice and competition, in other words, work schedules. tellingly, several authorities within the ncaa and university governance structures recognize clustering and scheduling of easy courses as problems. in addition, contrary to the ncaa's public posturing that they are just normal students, profit athletes tend in important respects to be physically, culturally and socially isolated from the campus community. they live in a tightly controlled parallel universe. through the steady drum beat of sophisticated and subtle snugal propaganda, the ncaa has sought spontaneous consent to a mythology that big-time college sport enhances the educational experience of, quote/unquote, student athletes. propaganda is effective because it exploits people's reluctance to intellectually engage with

any optional or different viewing. since 2003 while the ncaa has successfully imbedded its college model of athleticathlet including the graduation success rate into the public's consciousness, there has been little progress in ensuring profit athletes have equal access to educational opportunities afforded other students. in conclusion, there is clear evidence the ncaa's collegiate model of athletics not only systematically inhibits access to a world class university education, but also exploits profit athletes by denying them basic bargaining rights, due process and standard forms of compensation. i want to thank the committee members for the opportunity to visit with you today. >> thank you for your excellent testimony. finally, dr. mark emmert, who is -- well, you all know who he is. >> thank you, senator. good afternoon to you and

senator thune and -- >> is your microphone -- >> thank you. appreciate that. is it working now? can you hear me fine? >> i notice no difference. >> as a recovering university president, i've learned to project. thank you very much. and good afternoon to all of you on the panel. i'm mark emmert. i've served now as president of the ncaa since october of 2010, following 30 years as a professor, university administrator and university president. i certainly appreciate opportunity to appear before all of you today and discuss what i agree are very important issues. and i particularly want to thank you, mr. chairman, for working with us on the timing of this hearing. it's good that we're able to be here. the ncaa's core purpose, as has already been pointed out, is to promote the well-being and success of more than 460,000 student athletes as they enjoy both world class athletic

experiences and receive access to top notch educations. that's why i've been working diligently with the division i board of directors, our member universities and all the stakeholders to drive policy changes that support student athletes' success and, indeed, address many of the issues that have already been raised here today. during my tenure, we've enacted more than a dozen key reforms, two notable examples are raising academic standards and adding the opportunity for multiple year scholarships. as we discuss how to improve college sports today, it's important to understand that the ncaa is a democratically governed membership-led association of nearly 100 colleges and universities. as such, neither i nor any member of my staff have a vote on association policy or infractions decisions. it's important to note that appropriately, in my opinion, university presidents themselves are the ultimate decision makers within the association. members make rules through a representative process much as you do in congress.

it is challenging, obviously, to bring together coaches, athletic administrators, faculty members, student athletes and university presidents to achieve consensus on much of anything, let alone college sports. while a pace of change is not what i or many others would like, the division i member schools are working very diligently even as we speak to create a new decision-making structure that will yield practical, and i hope timely results on all of these issues. before we discuss the challenges at hand, let me be clear. college sports n my opinion, works extremely well for the vast majority of our 460,000 student athletes. while it can and should be modified, the collegiate model should, in fact, be preserved because of all of the good it provides for so many. nonetheless, i agree there are very important change that need to be made. and many university presidents happen to agree with me. let me describe the most important ones. first, student athletes, in my

opinion, should be given a scholarship for life. so, they may complete a bachelor's degree, even if their education is delayed for any reason unrelated to a delay of academic progress or serious misconduct. second, scholarships should cover the full and actual cost of attendance. not simply tuition, room and board, books and supplies. third, ncaa schools must always lead in the area of health and safety. for example, the ncaa, along with the -- a vaerlt of medical experts released recently new guidelines that addressed the diagnosis, the management and the prevention of sports-related concussions. fourth, the ncaa must work assertively with other -- with all of our universities on sexual assault prevention and support for victims. this is a national crisis and we could all do better. fifth, while all student athletes today are covered by insurance for injuries and the ncaa covers catastrophic

injuries, any gaps in coverage must be closed. sixth, the academic success of student athletes must remain our ultimate priority. this means providing them with the time as well as the resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities at college campuses as our two former athletes here have testified. finally, all changes that are made, these and others, must maintain a support for title 9 and cannot come at the cost of student athletes in women's and nonrevenue generating sports. the ncaa provides countless opportunities to men and women, including many from low income families who would not otherwise attend college. in fact, some 82,000 current student ath let'ses are first generation college students. at the risk of correcting mr. bradshaw, it is now $2.7 billion in athletic scholarships that are provides to students that make that a reality.

further, ncaa revenues are reinvested in our mission. specifically, last year's revenue allowed us to conduct 89 national championships in 23 different sports with nearly 50,000 student athletes participating in those championships from across the entire country. those revenues allowed us to provide $700 million directly to colleges and universities in all three divisions. 100 million of which was used to cover extra expenses and emergency expenses for division i student athletes. further, those revenues allowed us to cover the $14 million insurance premium for catastrophic insurance policies for our student athletes. college sports are serving student athletes very, very well for the most part. yes, there are changes to both policy and a culture that are needed. and they require frank conversations like the one we're having here and serious action. i'm committed to working with you and our member schools to

ensure that student athletes have all of the opportunities for success that they deserve. and i want to thank you for the invitation, mr. chairman, to appear today. i look forward to taking your questions and working with you in the future. >> thank you very much, mr mr. emmert. i will start, senator thune will follow, and then senator coats and we'll proceed from there. according to your website, and i'm just going back to basic stuff, student athlete health, safety and well-being remain our top priorities. yet in court papers filed for a lawsuit in which a family is sued the ncaa after their son died from a brain injury suffered in the preseason football practice, the ncaa asserted that, quote, the ncaa denies it has a legal duty to protect student athletes. close quote. i find that extraordinary. now, i know what your answer's

going to be. that's going to upset me. but the question is, how do you reconcile your website's publicly stated priority promoting health and safety with your private legal arguments, which you declare somehow are different, that the ncaa doesn't have a legal duty to protect student athletes? you either do or you don't. >> i will not quibble about the language. i think that was at the very least a terrible choice of words, created by legal counsel to make a legal argument. i'm not a lawyer. i'm not going to defend or deny what a lawyer wrote in a lawsuit. i will unequivocally state, we have a clear moral obligation to make sure that we do everything we can to support and protect student athletes. >> see, what i perceive is a web of convenient protection from -- to all parties. you suggested that there are a

number of universities. what i really want to see is a panel of subpoenaed university presidents from land grant, publicly funded universities. up here. and i think it will come to that. because i think it's going to have to. i don't know how we'll work anything out without it. but you say that was bad language by a lawyer who got confused or was late or didn't have a good night's rest or whatever it was. and so you sort of slosh over that. earlier you said that there are a number of universities that want to make a certain number of changes, which you then enumerated three or four of them. but then you've also said frequently in answer to questions, that you don't have the authority to do anything. you don't have a vote. as you said here, everything is in the hands of the university.

my cynical self says universities like the way things are right now because they're making so much money. in fact, they're making more money than they ever have before. not all, but some. there's about 120 that make most of it. 120 universities. i don't know where -- how change is possible. how do you make the case for saying that you can be a participant in this process of bringing about change when you say that they don't have to listen to anything you say? >> well, i can tell you, senator, what is going on right now. in less than a month now, the division i board will vote on a completely changed division -- decision-making structure that will put all of the subjects that we're describing and discussing here today in the hands of the 65 universities

that have the largest revenue. the schools that are within the five major -- >> i'm sorry. i've got to interrupt. why would you pick the 65 schools that make the most money? because to me they would be the ones who would be least likely to want to make any changes at all. >> quite the contrary. they're the ones that precisely want to make changes. often, changes that have price tags associated with them. they want to make those changes and are often blocked from doing so by institutions that have less revenue. so if, for example, you want to move toward a scholarship model that covers full cost of attendance, something that the division i board, in my first year on the job, twice passed. it was overridden by the membership of the 350 schools in division i, predominantly with the support of the 65 major schools saying, this is something we really need and they were blocked from doing so by the other institutions. so, those schools are, indeed, those schools that i just -- whose interests are the points

that i just enumerated. indeed, i was practically quoting from a letter signed by all the presidents of the pac-12 and the presidents of the big ten, whom have said, these are the changes we must make in enter collegiate athletics. >> are these the 65 largest universities or also the smaller ones who you say block progress because it's -- >> yes, sir. >> -- expensive? >> these are the 65 schools that are members of the five largest revenue conferences. the s.e.c., the big 12, the big ten, the pac-12, and the acc. >> would you agree with me in my final first-round questions that college sports has long forgotten the word amateurism? and i'm talking particularly about the 120 major. but, you know, there's a lot more than that. that it's just a business.

and the more money you can make -- mean, west virginia university signed onto the big 12, which guarantees one thing and one thing only. that means most of the people of west virginia, who are not high income or even moderate income, cannot go to any games out in the southwest. but the university certainly makes a ton of money from it. how do you respond to that? >> well -- >> is that right? is that fair? is that progressive? >> if i may, senator, there are two questions being asked there. the first is, do i believe that the 120 or so dominant schools, the fbs schools, perhaps to whom you're referring, have abandoned the concept of amateurism. i would say that, no, they have not. i certainly agree with you that the top line revenue, the expenditures that are going on right now in college athletics have unequivocally moved up very

sharply in the past two decades. the fact that schools are investing those dollars back into their athletic program makes it quite clear that the universities themselves are not doing this to, quote, turn a profit. indeed, last year out of the 1100 schools, about 23 in all of america had positive cash flow. in other words, spent -- invested all of the money they had in college sports and had some left over. everyone else in the country put resources into college sports instead of taking them out. in terms of the changes that occurred in the construction of the conferences over the past handful of years, i probably agree with you. i was disappointed in the changes of the conferences to make progress in. they created significant travel problems, not just for the fans but student athletics.

when you have to go across country for a football game is one thing, because that only occurs occasionally. when it's your volleyball team, your basketball team or your soccer team, it means student at letts are traveling a great deal, at great expense in both time, energy and commitment. so, i was quite disappointed in not all but many of those changes that occurred. >> i thank you. and i turn to ranking member thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. emmmert, under your presidency you indicated that you've taken the initiative to form some of these division i subcommittees to address needed changes. i'm wondering if you could discuss what you hope to accomplish with that initiative. >> thank you, senator. first of all, as i mentioned, within a month we'll see, i hope, the board pass a completely new decision-making structure because of the challenges of the past 24 months of making decisions around a very aggressive reform agenda. the leadership of the 65 leading universities have said, we

simply have to find a better way to make progress. they have identified as their agenda many of the items that i just addressed. and a handful of others. so, there is a very keen interest in finding, first of all, ways to provide greater support for student athletes. we passed twice over the past 36 months a proposal to allow universities to give student athletes, as a bare minimum, an additional $2,000 in their scholarship to cover miscellaneous expenses. i believe the board will appr e

approve -- -- >> to allow them. i think we're well on our way to mandating that they be, in fact, multiple year commitments so that student athletes don't have to worry about whether or not they're going to be able to finish their degree on time. i think that's extremely likely to happen. as i mentioned also, there's a very strong interest in the same group of leading universities to cover the cost -- fully the cost of insurance programs. the vast majority of universities cover all of those costs today. but it shouldn't be a question. it should be -- it should be quite clear that no student athlete will ever have to cover costs of insurance or injuries that they are inflicted on them when they're a student athlete. and i think finally, we've got to address this issue of time. the demands that are placed on student athletes right now are, in my eyes and i think in the eyes of many, i suspect mr. bradshaw, the demands place on young men -- both and women,

both of what's required of them for regular coaching, what's required from informal coach, what's required simply to be competitive these days is far too great a time demand. and we need to find ways -- i completely agree with mr mr. ramsay, for example, we need to find a way young men and women with find internships, stud abroad, opportunities we know prepare them for life because a tiny fraction of them will ever play professional sport for virtually all college players. their last game is their last game in college. that's not going to be their profession. their professional life and life in general is going to be changed by having a meaningful degree and meaningful experiences that go along with that. that means we have to create opportunities for them to do the many things that are available on campuses. >> thanks. mr. bradshaw, is it, you bring unique perspective as former a.d. and as a member institution taking care of the well-being of your student athletes. i'm told that it was your

practice while at temple to conduct exit interviews. i'm wondering -- sometimes those led to substantive changes in policy and how programs could be improved. but you have some examples from those interviews that you can share with us that led to direct improvements in the way temple addressed the needs of student athletes. >> we gathered our best information from our student athletes about how they were being treated. as many of you might know, student athletes aren't the most shy in the world. they're like my teenagers, they let you know when they're hungry, when they need things. the exit interviews were invaluable because the seniors were leaving the institution. we'd also follow up. we had questionnaires we sent the seniors a month before they left. and then we went over those questionnaires with the student athletes to talk about every facet of their experience at the university. that was helpful. we also had a captain's council, which was gate of all the captains from every team that got together, without the

coaches, just myself and some administrators to hear everything they had to say about their experience, so that we could use that in recruiting and help to do a lot better job. we also have team meetings with each team to welcome freshmen and also gather input from the freshmen about it. we were able to gather very valuable things. one team, their practice facility was 25 minutes from campus. they wh they got back in the evening, they weren't able to get the kind of quality dinner because a lot of the students had already been in there, things were picked over and we were able to extend that time for their meals for an hour so those student athletes could eat. we also have football players who were practicing in the afternoon, some of them in premed, and some of the courses they were taking were right up against their practice. we were able to get that football coach to take those practices in the morning when 97% of the classes that the kids were taking were there. so, those were very valuable --

that was very value input right from the center of our universe, student at letts. >> from the athletic director's standpoint, what role do you see the a.d.s in universities playing, in terms of -- some of these things you can go above and beyond what the ncaa requires, right? >> yes. >> there's a lot of flexibility allowed students? >> we have responsibility. it's institutional control. it's not only the chairman of the board of trustees but the president and athletic director should all be on board and have similar philosophies and missions and principles about how that works. in concert with all those people, because sometimes you need funds to do the things that you need to do. and you need the support from the bothered and the president. so, it's very important that all of us work together to do that because we're out recruiting other student athletes. that's a brand. we call athletics the front porch of the university.

it might not be the most important thing you see when you drive by, but it's the most visible messenger of the brand of the university. >> thank you. mr. chairman, that. >> thank you, senator thune. senator coats. >> senator, thank you. dr. emmert, thank you for testifying. i know you didn't have to do this. i think it's been very constructive to hear the reforms that you have initiated and those you hope to initiate. it sounds like there's some real positive things that are happening rl ty to the issues as you have acknowledged are challenges for the ncaa and challenges for the universities and challenges for our committee. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for following through on your commitment to me and to others that we're going to have a good, solid, nontheatrical investigation and committee

process here. because i think we're all on the same page in terms of, how can we best preserve the student athlete, best provide for them. how do we address some of the challenges we're facing today with the revenues and so forth. and i think this is a very constructive effort we're undertaking here. and i thank you for it, pulling all that together. here's what i'm hearing, and i'm leading to a question here, but i'm hearing from our witnesses there are many positive things happening and many positive results coming from being a student athlete. opportunities that are available to otherwise wouldn't have been able to get a college experience, college degree and college process. the list of reforms that dr dr. emmert has basically said these are his proposals.

and i think it goes right to what we're trying to accomplish here. scholarship for life, the full and actual cost of attendance, payment, leading and taking the lead in areas of health and safety, addressing the sexual assault issue, which goes across all aspects of athletics and also college experience. it's not limited to just one. medical insurance, dealing with those questions. academic priorities. support for title 9. it's remarkable what's happened under title viii, the women that can participate in athletics, gain scholarships. many of those would not have had a chance without scholarship and support. the vast majority of schools, whether division ii, division iii or 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. that's why he was hired. he's taken steps already. and willing to take significant steps forward obviously it goes to this question, dr. emmmert, of the 65. i was encouraged by your response to the chairman's question relative to their interests in addressing these issues. now, 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 you're the proposal. you're the initiator. but they're the decision-makers. so, i hope, mr. chairman, over some period of time, hopefully relatively soon, we can get a positive result from that effort. i think that's really where the

major issues fall. dr. emmert, would you just give us one more shot at the ability to address what i think goes to the root of the problem, and also to the root of solution. that is, that the top 65, which are the revenue-generators, what we don't want to jeopardize is the other thousand or so that aren't, and put them in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill title 9 or be able to fulfill the level of sports that give so many young people opportunities to participate and get a college education at the same time. >> yes, mr. chairman. senator coats, i think you're asking one of the -- well, two of the most important questions. first, is recognition that 100 or so years ago when the ncaa was created, it was as mr. branch pointed out, created with some impetus from the white house and congress because of

all the challenges in college sports. at that time it was determined college sports should be appropriately self-governed. that the universities themselves were capable of providing the right kind of structure and gov governance and oversight to make college sports work effectively for young men and young women. and we're at a point now where we're going to see yet again whether or not that self-governance system works. i have confidence because i k w knkno know -- met most of these presidents as colleagues and i know their interests, considerations and concerns. that provides me with confidence that they want to move forward on the agendas i mentioned, plus more, in the coming weeks and months. now, i think, mr. chairman, this hearing is a useful cattle prod, if you will, to make sure everyone understands that the world is watching. the u.s. senate is watching. everyone's paying attention to what universities are going to do to address these very real

and significant issues. i think all of those things combined give me some very positive belief that we're going to winds up in the right place in a matter of months. now f we're not, then we have another conversation we can have, i'm sure. and i have no doubt, sir, you or your successors will make sure we have that conversation. i have no concerns about this body or any other trying to hold universities accountable for the things they need to and should be doing. >> mr. chairman, my time's expired. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to note for the record that senator coats out in the hallway found out he just had his tenth grandchild. just for the record. >> and i heard he cried. >> oh, i didn't tell her that. >> i had to leave. i cried -- >> we love that. >> you don't get to -- >> a guy who cries over his grandchildren is very cool. >> we like that. >> thank you. >> i like that. >> another form of cartel.

>> senator heller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hope this doesn't get you in trouble, calling on me next. i have a couple things for the record. first, i'd like to submit an opening statement. your staff has that. and second, also for the record, as a usc alum, i'm pretty sure we usually watch the trojans beat notre dame on nbc not espn. not stanford. i wish i could say that. having said that to you, dr dr. emmert, i have a couple questions. the seven points you brought up are, i think, what you say are trying to achieve. i think they're more weaknesses today than strengths. if you have to talk about students having scholarships for life, today you don't have them. and i think that's a weakness. if you have to talk about men and women and having full and

actual costs while in college is a weakness because it's something you don't have today. if you're talking about leading in the area of safety, you're not doing it today. if the ncaa is talking about taking the lead in sexual assault, then they're not doing it today. you talk about gaps in insurance coverage, means it's not happening today. we can go on and on. managing time demands on these men and women in school means it's not happening today. and i'll share with you, every once in a while the chairman and i agree on something. i call that lightning in a bottle. maybe it's -- >> careful. >> maybe the stars are aligning. i'm not sure on this one. needless to say, i agree with him. that is, we do have jurisdiction in this congress over the ncaa. my question to you is this, if tomorrow there was a bill, and

from the united states senate that would disband the ncaa, and for all the discussions and hearings -- witnesses that spoke today, give me reasons why i shouldn't vote for that bill. >> well, i'm happy to. the fact is, first of all, we've been focused already in this brief period of time on the things that aren't happening. but the reality also is, is that an enormous amount of very, very good things are happening. >> good. i want to hear those. >> that we haven't talked about. 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 intercollegiate athletics. you're missing 95% of

intercollegiate athletics. for that other 95%, there are very few of those challenges or problems that are occurring. indeed, it is serving, so let's -- i'm not very good at math in my head, but if it's 95% of 465,000, let's just say it's 450,000 students or 425,000 students, for whom this is working amazingly well. they are graduating at a higher rate than their students -- the rest of the student body on the campuses. they're graduating at a higher rate than the rest of the students in the united states. yes, we can in fact have a very good learned conversation about how we miss graduation rates. student athletes in division i graduate higher than nonathletes on all campuses across america. if you look at men's and women's basketball, if you look at football, the graduation rates, as mr. bradshaw pointed out, have been steadily growing for more than 15 years, 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 happen to be an athlete than if they're not an athlete. the fact is that student athletes make very good students. yes, there are many issues. two former athletes here have pointed them out very nicely that need to be addressed. but for the vast majority of students, being an athlete goes along with being a better student and more likely to graduate. and we believe, although the data is not fully done, and i learned from dr. southall is working on a study that will be useful, we believe they'll be more successful in life overall. one of the things that we all need to work on together is to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water here. intercollegiate athletics as you pointed out, mr. rockefeller, provides extraordinary opportunities for the vast majority of student athletes. i focused my comments on the

things i'd like to see fixed. you just elaborated on them. that should not be interpreted as, everything's wrong in college sports. indeed, even if you look at scholarships. in fact, no one is giving a guaranteed -- most schools are not giving guaranteed four-year commitments. usc just committed to doing that. indiana just committed to do that. a handful are looking at -- >> wasn't that -- >> the reality is, 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 think will occur in the coming months. >> in other words, schools did offer four-year scholarships until the ncaa prohibited it. >> they did. and i have no idea why that was put into the rules. i have my own notions, but i have -- i don't even know when that occurred. a number of years ago. 1973 -- '73. >> no reason as to why?

>> bill, do you know why? >> really don't know. really don't know. >> none of us was in the room. >> in recruiteding, it's not a very good year not to give multiyear scholarships. >> i trust the historian. >> i would like to hear this. >> the historical record on that is that it was driven by the coaches at the biggest universities, precisely, the 65 bigger schools because they wanted more control over their athletes. they're driven to win. you have a better chance of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up and how much time he spends in the weight room and so on and so forth. if you can yank their scholarship, then you have more control over them. >> you can't do that anymore, can you? >> yes, you can. >> you can control -- >> 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, guaranteeing the coaches that control over the athletes. that survived for 40 years.

what they're trying to do is repeal that law so you can at your option -- >> excuse me for interrupting. it has been repealed. it's one of the first things i insisted on. >> it lasted for 40 years at the behest of the same 65 skoolgz that are now proposing to do these reforms you're talking about. and i think they're good. but it's because they can afford them and because the gap between the level of money involved and the needs of these athletes has gotten so obscene, they to want do it on their own and they can afford to do it. >> senator heller, 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 that student is no longer able to stay at a university. dr. emmert, that's true right now, right? >> it's variable. starting last year, schools -- two years ago, pardon me, schools were provided the option, in other words, this

prohibition was repealed so that a school today can offer a multi-year scholarship, and many do. as i just mentioned the university of southern california and indiana, for example, have recently announced that that is precisely what they are going to do is offer full four-year scholarships. many schools in the big ten have been doing so since the prohibition was lifted. i don't know the extent to which -- >> it's not uniform. >> it is most certainly uniform. >> and not even the majority of schools? >> not close to the -- >> senator booker, your time will come. >> do we need to remind you that he is junior on this committee? i think somehow he forgot that. >> calling on senator mccaskill. >> thank you. i would like to offer into the record the roll call of the institutions who voted to re-establish the one-year rule. after it was voted in in 2011 that you could have the option of giving a four-year scholarship. the very next meeting, there was an attempt to overrule that decision.

they needed two-thirds vote to overrule the decision to go back to the one-year requirement. i think it would be very interesting for the members of this committee to look at the institutions that voted to go back to a one-year requirement in 2012. they need 63 -- -- they need 62.5%. they got 62.12% to go back to the one year. and i think you'll be surprised. it's counterintuitive, some institutions that voted to go back to the one year, like harvard voted to go back to one year. yale was strong. they abstained. we had institutions like texas all wanted to go back to one year. but then there were smaller schools that wanted to go back to one year. >> what did missouri do? >> 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. it's very telling in 2012 -- now, i guess my question to you, dr. emmert, is why wasn't this made public at the time? because i think most of these universities would be embarrassed if they were publicly called out that they were unwilling to give a four-year scholarship to an athlete. so, why did it take a request from congress for this roll call for this to ever reach the light of day? and i would ask for this list to be made part of the public record. >> so ordered. >> the data were made available to all the membership. so -- >> i'm talking about to the public. why don't you put it on your website? >> don't know that -- i'm not debating the fact. i just don't simply know whether it was not made -- put on the website. the debate was very public. it was obviously a very disputed case. it was quite -- it's a very interesting debate. i was quite stunned by some of

the arg mentation. so, we have the -- one of the things i didn't mention about changes that i anticipate in the coming weeks. mr. branch point out something that's -- something that's part of the olympic movement, the olympic tradition now that in the united states that student athletes have to have a very -- not the student athletes. olympic athletes have to have a substantial vote and voice in all of the deliberations of the olympic bodies. i simple advocate for a model much like that. 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 -- >> that's all great. >> if i might, ma'am. the student athletic advisory committee voted against putting in multi-year 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 athletic advisory committee said, no, no, don't give multi-year scholarships. we like one-year scholarships. my point is simply, ma'am, it was quite counterintuitive to -- >> i would like to talk to those students because i feel they had pressure 23r coaches. i would like to get to handling rape accusations. >> yes, ma'am. >> in one of the responses to one of the letters i sent you, you indicated that you provided an online title 9 legal and best practices video and best practices. 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 9 complaints involving sexual assault against student athletes?

>> i don't know the answer to that. >> well, we've done a survey and the results came out today. and i was shocked to find out, 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. and 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 it because of who he was. if you're a victim and you know, your allegation is going to be handled by the athletic department, as opposed to any other student on campus who's 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 an enormous amount of conflicts of interests. i think it creates the kind of enormous apprehension you are describing right now on the part of the victim as somebody who spent most of his life on campus and in several jobs had responsibilities for campus safety whenever i was a president, i had to deal with victims and family members of victims and people who had suffered egregious harm. and i always found it the most difficult problem that i had ever wrestled with. i think this is something that needs to be addressed. i think your data is shining a very important light on a phenomenon that most of the members are going to be surprised to know exists. >> i think that my sense -- i

have a lot of questions about transparency of money and about whether or not things are made public. i feel for you. because in part of me thinks you are captured by those you are supposed to regulate. but then you are supposed to regulate those you are captured by. i can't tell whether you are in charge or whether you are a minion to them. the notion that you can't forcefully say, i will go after this and i will make sure that no university allows their athletic department to handle a sexual allegation against one of their team members -- i don't sense that you feel like you have any control over the situation. and if you have no control, if you are mere lirly a monetary p through, why should you exist? >> i think 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 set the tone on

it and i can 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 your practice. when first took this job, the very first summit i held in indianapolis was a summit on sexual violence. it was a summit that led to the creation of a working group of experts not college athletic folks but of experts from across the country to create a working group and a think tank. we're going to be issuing the results of their -- their work this summer as a working -- a workbook and a guide to best practices. thanks to your work, i'm going to make sure that this issue is addressed in that handbook. and i'm going to talk to the leadership at our very next meeting in august about the fact that this is really inappropriate and we need to find ways to make sure that athletic departments are not the ones who are responsible for adjudication of these issues because of all the obvious

concerns that you raise. >> thank you. i'm over my time. i will try to come back. i hope something else covers the questions about young people from families that can't afford to even travel to see their children play in the games. meanwhile, the universities are making money off their children but their parents can't even get a stipend to attend the game, to watch their child play. there's something wrong with that scenario. it's going on college campuses across this country every single week. sf >> i agree with you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to start with one of my favorite stories of the year was the coach -- the coach is the coach for the university of minnesota football team, who has epilepsy. as you know, dr. emmert, he had a number of seizures during games, during stressful moments in games. the president decided we're not going to get rid of him.

we're keeping him on. our record has been rocky but they kept him 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. 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 that story was that it kind of defied what had become of so many of these big sports games and the cut-throat competition and how people were treated. i think what you are hearing up here today is the hope that these are deliverables, these are things that can happen when you talk about changing the sexual assault policy, making sure the players have the healthcare insurance, making sure that they have the time to do these internships. these aren't crazy hard things to do. i think they're possible things to do. what i more want than anything as i listen to this is that we

commit -- i know the chairman will be retired. but he will be here, i'm sure, for that. that we have another hearing, whether it's six months from now or a year from now, to check up on what's happening. these are things that we don't have to pass a law to change. when i listen to some of these commitments and the possibilities. i wanted to go with one of the things, that we haven't talked about as much, and that is the issue of the concussions. we have had several players, whether at the high school level or at the college level -- i know a senator co-sponsored his bill. we have had hearings on this specific topic already. but i understand that there is some work being done here. i know there's a lawsuit going on. but i wondered if you could comment, dr. emmert. then i will ask you mr. southall with your medical focus your opinion of it. if you could talk about what's being done with this issue. i think it's a very important issue for all levels of sports. >> i think it's a critical issue and it's most heavily identified

with football, of course. it's the leading cause of concussions for young women in soccer, for example. it occurs in virtually every sport. there's a number of things going on. i'll be as quick as i can. as i mentioned in my opening comments, we created -- when i first came into the office, i was surprised to find there wasn't a chief medical officer position in the ncaa. i created that job and went out and hired a wonderful doctor who is a neurologist. he has been working unbelievably hard to pull together first of all the best science. one of the problems is we don't have science on concussion. it's not as understood as we think. so once they have done that, just this past handful of days they released the first ever consensus among all the medical community on the treatment and the prevention of concussions, especially around football and new football practice guidelines

around contact and 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 $15 million. dod is putting up $15 million to track longitudinally young men and women and to try and get a legitimate history of the occurrence of and treatment of concussions so that we understand them better. we're working with youth sports -- all of the youth sports organizations to try and get better practice guidelines, working with the nfl on their head's up program to try and get coaches, especially in football, coaches trained how to tackle properly. we have the same issue with soccer. there's soccer -- girl soccer coaches that are saying, we need to ban any heading until girls and boys are 12 years of age. we're looking at trying to lend our support to those efforts. we're making great headway, but

the facts are we need a better understanding of this disorder and how we can prevent. i'm pleased with 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 specialty of neurosurgery was because i saw a lot of my teammates having early onset dementia or things that you often associate with several con cuss receive episodes. i saw it in the nfl and in college. now as an aspiring neurosurgeon i would love to add expertise to the discussion. i think at the college level, one thing i noticed in the locker room was my teammates, a lot of fellow athletes, we want to be fast, quick, nimble. we want to bea abe agile. a lot of the guys would choose equipment that's lighter and maybe not as protective. so that may lead to more concussions. i think education is incredibly

important. we do have some athletic trainers and doctors that come and speak to us as athletes and talk about the danger of concussion. if you are con cussed as a player, sometimes you feel pressured to get back on the field as quickly as possible. then if you have a risk of a second concussion, your likelihood of getting a third, fourth, fifth goes up. the pressures and stresses of trying to be on the field, trying to compete, not losing your position all at the same time -- if you are not on the field, nfl coaches can't see you, you are not exposed. then you perhaps lose the opportunity of getting drafted high and getting to your next level. there's a lot of issues that go on. one way to address this issue is along with education is just to perhaps change the culture, change the focus of big collision high velocity hits in the sport of football and the idea that that is a part of the game. it's not a part of the game. if you look at the rule book,

it's to take a player to the ground, similar to rugby. you see highlights and exposure on the big hits where guys are spe spearing into another player. that's what gets highlighted and celebrated. i think that's the wrong path. hopefully in a few years or so i can add more knowledge to the discussion. but from my anecdotal knowledge, it is an issue that's not only in the nfl but also in college and before that in high school and primary school football. >> thank you. i will ask the questions on the record about the internships of you, mr. ramsey. i thought that was fascinating when you look at the numbers that dr. emmert gave us on what a small proportion of the student athletes end up going into pro sports, that's most likely not going to be their career. they have to have that ability to pursue -- if it's supposed to be 20 hours, then we have to find some way to measure that and enforce it so it's across the board. that's one of the things i'm interested in hearing the follow-up in a year.

i thank you for bringing that to our attention. thank you. it has to go down as we discussed, dr. emmert yesterday, to the high school level so that we put some of this in perspective. i do think there's ways to change cultures. we have changed cultures in this country before and still have great sports games. thank you. >> thank you. i want to say something. 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 they're are clear reasons for it. the decision making is flawed, and useless. florida, which has -- everybody recruits from florida. they have a law, which you would

know, senator, that transparency, how money is spent, has to be made public, because they have a law. and so when the contributions comes in and only a small portion goes to education and all kinds of things go to -- that's all available to the public. so i commend them for coming from a state like that, and i just think that's the path for so many answers which we just otherwise seem to be unwilling to deal with. excuse me. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a lot has come out of this committee hearing that should enable and help dr. emmert to continue with the reforms that he's trying. now, i would just -- so much has

been said about so many of these issues. let me just highlight some -- a couple. i happen to know, because i was mesmerized with mr. roll as a player at florida state. and for him to do his interview for the rohodes scholarship in the south on a saturday, his president had to get special dispen sags 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 -- that's something that's so common sense that you would want a player to

interview for the rhodes. and yet it was a big deal. and it shouldn't have been. the fact of so many of these players are coming from families that are dirt poor, and they don't have the opportunities that others do. it seems to me it's common sense we ought to have stipends or scholarship, whatever you want to call it, so it equalizes the playing field of the financial ability if those student athletes are contributing to the financial well-being of that university. so, too, with health insurance. that ought to be common sense. if a player is hurt and that is a career-ending injury, the best

of medical care ought to be given to that player. and to it to last for some period of time in the future. and, of course, concussions just add another whole dimension to this thing. i thought it was very interesting in another committee that i have the privilege of chairing, we did a hearing on concussions, including professional athletes, went down the line on the table. and they would not recommend to their children that they play football. so times are changing. and the ncaa has got to get with the times. and so whatever this committee hearing has done to enable you as a reformer to get those

schools to give you the votes that you need to do a lot of these things that we're talking about, the family travel, why should they have to sneak around in the shadows in order to get money to be able to buy a ticket to come to the game and where to stay in a hotel and so forth? i mean, it just -- it defies common sense. mr. roll, you want to make any final comment? >> sure. one thing that i'd like to say is that when you think about the four-year scholarship discussion and the one-year renewable, a lot of players that i was on teams with kind of felt like it was us versus them. it wasn't a team. we didn't feel like the ncaa was protecting our best interests, was looking out for us, wanted to see us succeed and thrive.

it was almost as if we had to do everything we could to promote ourself and to better ourself against this big machine that was dictating and ordering the steps we took. maybe it's not true. maybe it's a miscommunication. maybe the information was genting disseminated to the studenta agage the student athl well enough. a lot of my teammates come from poor areas in florida and they come to florida state as the first person in their family to be a college student. they don't have a lot of money to lean back on from thur families. so that leaves them open and susceptible to unsavory things. these are agents, nfl runners who would come to our dorms and knock on our 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. then the players accept it because they don't have much else. they become ineligible. then they don't have opportunity for financial gain because now they have a black mark or don't play anymore. they end up back in polk county, florida. i saw it often. >> that is the exact example that we need to use. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. isn't that senator cory booker in attendance here today? it's his turn to ask a question. >> finally. i apologize. >> no, sir. >> you could have run for the senate ten years ago. >> i don't want to be disrespectful for senator -- would you like to -- >> i will ask my questions now only because i have to preside.

if you would yield for five minutes, i would really appreciate it. >> i have already been put in my place more than once. i will yield. >> you are bigger than i am. let me thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing, which very sincerely is i think a very important one, very significant for the future of academic institutions. i want to thank all of the folks who have come to enlighten us. and thank you to senator nelson for having that hearing on concussions which was very enlightening. 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 that the law is heading in the direction of regarding athletes at universities more and more as employees.

that is because of the growing asymmetric and inequality of bargaining positions, financial benefit, energy, time, sweat, blood, injury that is involved. that is classically the reason why labor law protections have applied to individuals who potentially are victims of exploitation, whether it's in garment factories or construction sites or universities. and so i think the challenge here is to diminish that asymmetry to reduce the inequality and to return truly to the model of student athletes, which i think many of us want to be the prevailing model but increasingly is not so. and, therefore, the laws will move to protect them as the ruling reflects. i say that with regret, because

i, too, as dr. emmert has articulated well, student athlete model rather than the employee/employer model, but the reality is that athletes, in effect, function as employees the more the law will recognize that fact and my opinion is worth what you are paying for it t. i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut. i sincerely believe that's the direction of the law. i want to first ask you, dr. emmert, i was absolutely astonished and deeply troubled by the revelation that athletic departments, on many campuses, investigate campus sexual assaults. i 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 the senator brought forward was shocking to me. >> i am shocked and outraged by the apparent practice on many campuses of in effect 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 make billions of dollars on the talents of these young men and women. and i want to ask you, couldn't the ncaa offer health insurance fora for athletes for a certain amount of time after they leave college? that seems fair and effective,

making them better athletes and better students while they are there. i would ask for why you commitment that you will work toward providing for health insurance for these needs and injuries that may extend beyond their playing years on campus or even in professional settings. and i'd like to know what more -- assuming you are committed to that cause, what more your organization can do to encourage schools to provide this kind of coverage for its student athletes. >> yes, sir. well, today, coverage that exists right now is provided either by the campus itself or by the student athletes' family, depending upon university policies at most of the high-resource schools, they provide the insurance so that the student doesn't have to. we need to do several things. one, we need to make sure -- in my opinion, we need to make sure there aren't co-payment

requirements of a young man or woman, from a low-income family, has an injury and they have a $2,000, $5,000 co-payment, that seems grossly inappropriate. since it was a sports-related injury, why should they be on the hook for that? we need to make sure we don't have those circumstances out there. we have right now at the ncaa level catastrophic insurance so that if there is long-term disability issues, if there are injuries that require treatment over a course of a lifetime, there's a policy in place. we have some individuals that have been on that insurance policy for 20 or more years. and we have taken a number of steps to make sure that that is as strong as it could possibly be. that policy doesn't kick in until you have $90,000 worth of bills. we need to make sure that to your -- i'm saying, yes, i guess senator. you have my commitment. >> i'm glad to hear the yes. >> there are complexities in all this we need to work our way

through. i agree with you that -- >> thank you. >> no one should have to pay for an injury that they suffered as a student athlete. >> i welcome and accept your yes to both the sexual assault and the insurance questions. and i would ask further for your commitment that you will work with us on sensible legislation that will impose a higher level of responsibility in both areas. thank you. >> certainly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i'm grateful. you and i talked about this in my first days as a senator that this was an issue you wanted to cover. you saw my excitement for doing that. a lot of that stemmed from the fact that i was back in the '90s an ncaa division i football player. i want to say it's important for me to say that i probably wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for that experience. i am deeply grateful.

i joke i got into stanford because of a 4.0, 4.0 yards per carry. 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 and athletes. forgive me if i'm not giving that appropriate light. but what concerns me and what you and i have talked about for some time are the egregious challenges we have. i want to publically thank dr. emmert, because he was gracious not only just to come here but he took special time to come see me as a former ncaa athlete to sit down with me and hear my concerns. and i was taken aback that you agreed with me across the board. let me reiterate those for the record and just make sure we are in agreement. number one, you agree it's a big problem that athletes don't get

scholarships to get a b.a.? >> yes. >> that's 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's a problem? >> yes. >> you agree it's a problem that we have athletes often very poor coming on to college campuses restricted from working, they can't shovel driveways for extra spending money, can't meet the needs of travel, can't buy toilet tries, clothing, they are restricted from working, you know that's a problem we have to address? >> a minor correction. they can in fact work and in many cases do. but the biggest challenge is they haven't the time. >> in other words, they can't work because of whatever reason, you know that's a problem that the scholarship does not cover the full cost of -- >> yes. >> they are being expected whether by law or not to work 40, 50, 60 hours a week?

>> completely agree. >> that's a problem, right? 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 blownout knees and even though they graduated, they have to go in the pocket for co-pays and the like to deal with medical injuries that were incurred really the root of them was the challenges they had when they were an athlete? >> i agree that the insurance today is much better than most people think but there's certainly areas that need to be -- >> it's inadequate and costing athletes thousands of dollars into their lifetimes? >> yes. >> you agree there's a problem with time? that as the two athletes at the end of the table, it's not just the practice time? how many hours would you show up to get taped, treatments, an hour, two hours? sometimes three hours, depending how bad your strain is. we have athletes putting in upwards of 60, 70 hours a week, that's a problem. >> huge problem. >> you agree that there is at

least an issue that has to be dealt with to improve with the issue of sexual assault, that has to be improved with the way we investigate? >> the way we educate young men and women and the way we educate people on campuses to handle the issues. >> and this we didn't cover. it might not be a simple yes or no. in terms of the due process when a young man like mr. ramsey not even knowing he had -- he could get a lawyer, not getting help, that there are break downs in process that are not clear? would you say that that process could be improved? >> it certainly could, especially on most campuses, yes. >> so i guess i just turn to you, mr. chairman, not having the time to go through more rounds and deeper questioning, to just say clearly, this is my problem is this was a challenge for when i was an athlete, 20 years ago. and athletes, after athletes are

going through and facing what i consider the exploitation of athletes. let me be very clear. it is exploitation when you have an athlete working 60, 70 hours a week but yet still not able to afford the basic necessities, not just having your parents fly back and forth, but being put in horrible situations where they see the jersey with their name on it being sold, making thousands of dollars, but they can't afford to get the basic necessities of life. if they try to sell their jersey for 50 bucks, they then get penalized and -- that's exploitation of an athlete. to me it's exploitation when you give your body -- how many linemen do you know today that played with you that have gone through four, five and six surgeries for their knees? >> many. >> a lot. and if they're going into their own pocket after giving up their knees to make millions of dollars for the university and

then the universities aren't compensates them, that's an exploitation of a college athlete that has to be addressed. if we have guys like was testified by the two gentlemen on the end who i know this because we spent hours -- we did the math, my teams, because so many players feel an assault on your dignity, that you are putting 70, 80 hours a week, giving up internships, you know more about your play book -- i can tell you stone breaker, todd light, chris -- i can tell you more about them because that's what i was studying at night that you spend all of that effort and then your university is not in any way ensuring that you get a degree at the end in something like engineering or political science, they are not honoring the fact that sometimes, when you are working full-time, you can't finish your degree in four or five years. in fact, when -- they can lord

over you the removal of your scholarship because it does still happen. athletes are exploited if they blow out their knee, if they don't meet the mandates of a coach, they lose their scholarship. they don't get their degree. so to me, this is plain and simple, the dark side of the ncaa where athletes are being exploited. this is why i love that taylor branch is here. because occasionally -- you use these words, dr. emmert, this may work as a cattle prod to get this moving. i have seen the ncaa move quickly when there is money and reputation on the table. for example, you mentioned his na name, napier says on national tv what we know athletes -- what coaches know is a 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, if i'm correct, the law -- the rule is changed and guys can eat. >> yes. i would like -- >> hold on. i'm already over my time, sir. let me give you another example. cam newton was going through the same problems you were at the same time. his eligibility was being challenged, mr. ramsey. cam newton, a guy that brings millions of dollars into a university, and his adjudication happened quickly. yours did not. you are not a name athlete. what i want to say in conclusion, mr. chairperson, is -- really why i love that taylor branch is here. he wrote about the civil writes movement that when there is a class of individuals who are

being exploited and there is millions and millions of dollars being brought in and guys can't even afford healthcare, can't afford to finish their degrees, then we have a problem. and i respect dr. emmert and saying, we're going to try to address that, but where is the urgency 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. do it with what kind of speed? all deliberate speed. 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 the united states of america. we can't afford to wait for all deliberate speed. there has got to be some level of accountability for fast action on things that the head of the ncaa says is a problem. next season when football season starts, there will be kids suffering from the same list of unfair things that somehow, some day is going to be addressed.

i think we need another hearing with the real rule makers, with college presidents and ask how fast are they going to address the exploitation of college athletes? mr. chairman, thank you. >> dr. emmert, can he have -- >> i have an obligation -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. let me just say up front on this issue of athletic departments investigating sexual assault allegations, that is ridiculous. you have to get in and fix that right away. i am a proud graduate of the penn state university. it's obviously -- it was so troubling and disappointing to see what happened at my university. i love the university, but the athletic department is not where you handle these kinds of allegations. you have to fix that. walk out this door and fix that. what i'm troubled about when i

hear the testimony today -- i need to understand. the senator asked about the change to an employer/employee model. we talked about compensation potentially for athletes today. i done wa't want to see athlete mistreated. but as i think about what, for example, the nlrb did in its ruling, i know at private universities allowing unionization at northwest he were, 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 revenue generating sports and what will that do to women's athletics if we start down the road of a compensation model, what will happen in our schools in terms of the schools

that -- the sports that aren't at the top where those athletes, you can sell jerseys, you can make money but are still very important to student life? when i think about title 9 and women and the opportunities women have gotten because of title 9, if you are on campus and this becomes an employer/employee type model, what does that do for the women's sports if they're not revenue generating? how do we sustain them if this model changes? it's a big question. but i would like you all to comment on it, because the last thing i want to see is -- i want to make sure that our athletes are treated well. certainly, mr. roll, what you have done -- it's inspiring to see what you have done. thank you, mr. ramsey, for your inspiration of being here. there's a whole category of athletes that weren't at your

level but are participating in college sports and it's been an opportunity for them to get an education and for women as well that are at your level but don't always -- our sports don't always generate the same amount of revenue. i want to make sure that women still have the opportunity that they have had because of title 9. if you could comment on that, i would 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 grant and aid, then we should treat them differently than athletes who are not profit athletes. it's not either or or they must be. if they are employees, is t emp should treat them as employees. that does not mean college athletics or athletes in other sports, women or -- it

doesn't -- >> can i tell you -- my university said if the unionization rule would apply, they feel like this is actually going to diminish the athletic program. it would diminish it for women, for non-revenue generating suppo sports. but that's not what i'm hearing from universities. >> i would say that probably a university president by the name of chicken little might have been the first one to say that. 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 are employees, then should have all the rights of employees. it does not -- title 9 does not apply in an employee setting. >> i would like to see what mr. brad sh bradshaw has to say about what i

said as well. thank you. >> we probably don't have time. but i would like to hear that model that works. i believe it's going to be devastating to all those student athletes, including women who don't produce revenue, who aren't seen as athletes or students who create that revenue. i really would like to see that model work, because as we all know, that's going to mean those who can afford to pay for that will and those who can't won't. >> thank you. >> again, if i could reiterate -- i appreciate the question. i'm trying to articulate it as clearly as i can. if the athletes are, in fact, employees, then we have a morale obligation under the law to treat them as such. if they are not 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 athletes. >> i know my time is up. i know others are to ask questions. we're just going to have a distinction some? some will be employees and some will -- >> they already are employees. >> i don't see how that works. >> they already are employees. by being open and honest about what we are using in exploiting these athletes, honesty is a regor very good thing. >> if i'm not a revenue generating athlete, then i'm not -- i'm not eligible for this relationship? then there's a second category of athletes on campus. that bothers me. >> we refer to them as revenue athletes right now and olympic sports. that's fine. it does not mean that if we compensatethletes that everyone else has to go away.

that is not what has to occur at all. if the universities fine 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. >> senator scott. >> thank you. dr. emmert, as i listen 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 would have impact in universities and have impact in athletic programs. i just wonder how significant that impact would be. let me say this before you answer the question as you think about your answer.

mr. to mr. southall, it's good to have you. i would be remiss if i didn't point out that at least you go to the right place, the gamecocks, i like that a lot being a south carolina fan myself. my story is very different than cory's story and the rhodes scholars have done very well academically. i'm very proud to see your success off the field as well as on the field. i will tell you that my story -- it 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. if it not had been football, i would not have played football. played for a year and earned a christian leadership college which took me to a different school. i realized that responsibilities and the burden of practice before and after labs and the challenges that i faced and made a decision to go a different route. it h it not been for the

scholarship opportunity, i would not be sitting here today, because i would not have had the opportunity to start my education. when i think about -- i went to a small college. when i think about the cost structure of this conversation on athletes that are not in those top tier schools, there is a significant unintended consequence i think we are looking at that kelly really brought to the surface that is hard to deny and harder to figure out how to fix it. >> i happen to agree with you. i think that the implications of converting a student athlete model to an employee/employer model would utterly transform college sports into something that doesn't begin to look like what it looks like today. the impact on -- with all due respect, i completely agree with dr. southall's interpretation of

all this. if you simply look at the definition of an employee as has been provided by one nlrb administrator, that if a student is it receiving a scholarship and additional benefits, that's compensation. if they are working more as a student athlete than they are in their academic work, then they are working. if they are subject to the oversight of a coach, then they have a boss. i'm not a labor lawyer, but that's in summary the definition of a student athlete. that would apply to virtually every student athlete that has a scholarship. a -- the different between a woman's basketball player and a men's basketball player isn't that the men's basketball player works harder. it isn't that they are more or less talented. the only different is a singular difference, and that is there's

more people in the stands. that's it. in terms of their time commitment, competitiveness, everything. the difference is, one plays in front of a lot of people and one doesn't. the difference between a volleyball player and soccer player is the same. the only difference is whether they are playing on tv or whether they are not. that completely changes the relationship. as dr. southall pointed out, title 9 has nothing to do with any student athlete that's no longer a student athlete that's now an employee, including a women's basketball player. >> quick question. i know you played sports a couple of years ago. five or seven years ago, it was. >> thank you very much. >> i can't read my notes. i think it says four or five years ago, not 45. my question is, as you have had a lot of experience and you have looked at this opportunity as well as the challenges that come with the opportunity from multiple angles, what kind of

progress have you seen over the last three decades or so as we wrestle with some of the challenges that are going to be future challenges and certainly are present challenges, sometimes we miss the progress we have made along the way. >> certainly, all of us think we can do better. there's no question about it. we spend most of our time talking about how we can be better and not patting ourselves on the back. as a former assistant coach back in the head and head coach and student athlete that it's night and day, the changes, the quality of physicians, trainers. i mean, we didn't know what a dietician was when we were -- as student athletes. the changes are enormous. they are compelling. i think one of the things i would recommend that you get student athletes to talk to, that there's a balance. there's outliers, there's horrible stories that have happened. none of us -- one is too many.

whether assault or date rape or whatever it might be. i would love to see a panel of student athletes talk about everything, a balanced panel of that. it's been significant across the line. i'm retired now. i can talk about it objectively. concern about a college president or a faculty or a board of trustees. it's really just an incredible profession that we're in. the changes that the ncaa are trying to make -- mark has to deal with votes. he has to deal with the institutions, the college presidents, the board of trus e trustees who president them. i think you have something when you want to bring the presidents in here. i think that would be a good move and something that could help everyone. the changes that have happened, they are just -- by leaps and bounds, particularly even in the last decade. >> final question, mr. chairman? do i have time for a final

question question? >> sure. >> as you look at the opportunity for collective bargaining and its impact on the academic environment, realizing almost all institutions, it's to cultivate an environment conducive for academic achievement, how do you see the impact of the collective bargaining opportunity, i have grave concerns with it personally, and its impact on the academic environment or do you see one? >> i don't see it would have any affect. >> good enough. thank you, sir. >> thank you. i want to make -- i know the question you want to ask. mr. emmert has answered most of those questions. i know you feel a duty to ask the question. there isn't a second round. i'm going to make a closing statement. at 5:15 we will be through this

long hearing. i want to say this. i have two impressions, one of them is superficial, the other i think is worrisome of this hearing. i want each of you to either agree or not agree with me as kind of your closing statement. that on one level this has been an open conversation. we brought up all kinds of issues. and those issues have been discussed to a small degree or a large degree. but my real -- my real feeling from this hearing is that we haven't accomplished much and that people have laid down their -- i'm not talking about you two gentlemen. but there has been sort of a

self-protection mode, either for one's self- or on behalf of others. your point about getting board of trustees in, that would be interesting. because they do have a big influence or college presidents. all i know is coming out of this hearing that i don't think i have learned anything particularly new except some anecdotes that i haven't been hearing for 50 years, which is how long i've been in this busine business. and that the answers, you know -- of course, there's progress. of course, there's progress on concussions and, of course, there's progress in other things. is it in any way concomitant in effective progress to 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 -- i forget what the example was, but it was a statement, i got something done. i don't believe that. i don't believe that. i think that the system is rigged so that you are separated from the possibilities of getting something done except as you testify or, you know, you probably couldn't write articles. you would probably get blow back on that. but i don't think you have the power. i think it's constructed for that purpose. i'm cynical. i'm cynical about it. it's too easy to have -- to complain in senate hearings about -- or any kind of forum what progress has been made. of course, there's always progress that's been made.

but does it keep up with what needs to be done? the answer is absolutely not. this country is now so soaked in the culture of espn plus i guess a couple of other stations and watching football, baseball, world soccer, all the rest of it. i think it's -- my own view is it's under mining our values. i will tell you one thing, i think it's undermining our commitment to education. dr. southall, i think that you are talking about the different ways of jiggering the students who are not athletes actually do a better job academically than those who aren't, it was said by the head of the ncaa it was true and it was in his testimony, i

don't believe that. i just don't believe it. i may be wrong. and then the different formulas you use is very interesting to me and something i would like to know more about. but to me it's been in essence an important hearing but not one which points to progress. because i think everybody is going to leave this hearing and go -- i'm not. i don't think senator booker is. 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. nobody did themselves any great damage. congress doesn't usually follow through. congress doesn't get that much done. that happens to be true for the last three or four years. and then there's always the question of getting people from

either trustees or heads of colleges and universities from states and then members here which correlated to that might not want to have that happen. i mean, the world works in ways that protects itself. but this is a particularly ugly one. the question of rape and having -- 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 passed passed by a margin, but it was not a great margin. so, yes, that's progress. but what we want to do is get there. and i don't have a feeling that we're on that path. i think this hearing symbolizes that we might be. but the substance is that we

probably won't be. react to that. anybody who wants then. then i'm going to close the hearing. >> mr. branch, i think you had -- >> well, senator, i think that some differences have been -- there are big differences here between talking about the way things work and how to reform and the whole underlying structure. frankly, i think some differences have been diminished. i agree whole heartedly with one thing that dr. emmert said, if they were vacated or abolished or somehow vacated forage le et, it wouldn't make a difference. an athlete --' recruit as a small division iii school would

be able to ask for better health coverage and a salary and the school would be free to laugh at them and say, we don't do it. go somewhere else. just like if the piccolo player said i want to be paid to march in the band. the schools are free to bargen that way. it would make an enormous difference in the 65 schools that we're talking about where there is gigantic money if an athlete can bargain at recruiting for better healthcare coverage, for more time to study, for a longer scholarship, it would change things because right now the model is that the schools do that so solely at their dispen sags. the coaches in the big schools want to give money out of their own pocket to players, like a tip, because they know they don't have enough money to eat. a model that recognizes that these athletes are trying to manage two very demanding careers at once that are in separate spheres is a step forward.

but right now to me the least hopeful thing i heard today is that we are looking to the same 65 schools that are the most commercialized as the engine of reform in the ncaa? i really don't see that. they may give higher compensation. they may give more tips. but they are the ones that created most of these problems in the first place. and i don't thinkbig schools are going to do anything other than being driven by the market. those schools exploit their athletes both as players and as students. i go around to all of these big schools. the athletes tell me they are pushed into certain majors that are easy. they are not allowed to take certain courses. the sad thing to me -- i think that some differences are outlineed and maybe diminished. but i don't see the big 65

schools as an engine for much reform in the future. their record doesn't show that. >> any other comments? >> mr. chairman, i had asked before -- >> i know you want mr. emmert to ply to everything mr. booker said. >> i think he has an opportunity to say that. senator booker had every right and was passionate but he levels accusations at the ncaa. i think they deserve to be able to respond to that. >> they will have ample chance to do that. i have been bend over backward, annoyed some of my members to give you a particular break because you come from indiana where ncaa is headquartered. i have done that. >> i don't think you gave me a break. i was the first one here. that's the normal procedure. >> if you hadn't been, you made it very clear on the floor that

you wanted to be the first one to ask the questions. i said that's okay. >> but then i said i will be the first -- >> i'm not going to bend on that. this the closing statement. he can write every member of the committee a letter. anybody else want to say anything? >> i have spent the last 15 years of my career examining intercollegiate at&t a let ticks. i am very disheartened. 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. >> 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, we got a lot of steps to make. as others pointed out the world is changing. it's like the jackie robinson "42" movie and the player comes in and says i want to be traded. then he comes back and says i don't want to be traded. well, are you willing to play with robinson? he said, the world is changing. i can change, too. there is an element of that this has its own beauty. there has been progress. my question is for my entire adult life i have been hearing about this. still so many problems are

extant calls into question the way decisions are made and carried through within the upper ranks of the football and basketball community. that's on my mind. i'm going to say that and also that that's the last thing i will say. this hearing is adjourned.