i think my overall feeling on this, jimmy, is that the notion of be careful what you wish for. i'm not so sure we would like what we create if, in fact, we start paying athletes and have a whole separate pro league and lose what has been such a popular piece of all of our lives, which is that college sports experience either playing for watching, being on campus, cheering for these student athletes, many of whom are doing it the right way, are going to graduate, and are going to give back to the universities for the next 50 to 60 years and those communities. so there are absolutely -- are there problems in college sports? you bet. but paying athletes is not the way to solve them. >> let's go right down the line. lenny? >> well, i would agree conceptually with christine. she speaks of paying athletes, but it depends on what you mean by paying them. i look at the relationship and kind of just came to my mind as

more a benefactor/beneficiary. nevertheless, when you look at the amounts of dollars that are coming in based on the exploits of the student athlete, you know, should there be some balance in the equities? absolutely. but are they in the form of salary? should the whole relationship be in the form of terms, wages, conditions, and benefits which seem to inure more to the idea of employee as opposed to beneficiary, then i would say no, that we need to take a look at how we can balance those equities without making it a pure employer/employee relationship. i don't know if people are aware that, you know, there's a lawsuit filed yesterday, sackow versus the ncaa which is relying on the fair labor -- or fair standards labor act and why student athletes under scholarship are not paid minimum wage, which becomes another issue since other -- in

work/study situations other students are paid the minimum wage and are able to gain some kind of paycheck. but in the end i do believe that our culture in college sports and the things that we have loved about college sports is certainly under assault, and it's under assault by those who, you know, always talk about getting paid, and it's really filtered down to young people. i can't tell you how many times i have talked to at less sents and people who are athletes and want to become college and professional athletes that always talk about this idea of getting paid without understanding the true value of a scholarship and the grant. we can talk about any number of things with regard to the benefits that student athletes are getting besides the education, room, board, books, and tuition. reform will ultimately be able to balance the equities with some type of payment based on the right of likeness, the right to publicity. also medical benefits. what number do we put on the

medical benefits and hopefully reform will continue those benefits beyond eligibility. we talk about such things as getting an education. if you haven't received your degree through your eligibility, so many schools right now are moving in a direction of providing those opportunities way beyond exhaustion of your eligibility. and then finally i would like people to fully understand, when you talk about true value, scholarship athletes versus nonscholarship students. you know, we're talking about $294,0 $29,400 is what most students who come out of school, that's the average debt that they're carrying. scholarship athletes are carrying nothing, and so to me the real value of the education and the scholarship that student athletes are receiving hasn't been articulated well enough and it's allowed those who assault

that particular culture to grab a foodhold in the argument and i think that needs to be changed, but in the end, as i said before, i totally do not agree in the employer/employee relationship, and i still believe that, you know, benefactor/beneficiary, even though there is a quid pro quo, even though there's a symbiotic relationship, certainly is one that we need to look at strongly and we need to put into context so we can make a definition as far as what student athletes mean to an institution and vice versa. >> two versus zero. lisa. >> three. >> i have a feeling i know where this is going. >> and i'll take this one step further because i couldn't agree with both speakers who have made a point thus far, and that is i would always stand in line with what you just heard in the panel before this one, and that is whatever has to be done to financially maintain a sustainable environment of a uniquely american culture of attaching amateur sports to college and universities and all

that positive that has been yielded over a century and then a half century once you became multigender by adding women through title 9 and multiethnic by some serious work in the civil rights movement in the '60s, the benefit to our society is boundless because of the concept of paying for someone's education because they have a unique talent and then making it an inclusive environment. having been an athlete, having been a coach, having been a senior official at the university of southern california that worked specifically with the olympics sports and then becoming the athletics director at arizona state where i was overseeing the entire enterprise and obviously getting extremely close to football and basketball program coaches and making maneuvers therein, what has been cultivated over time is a beautiful marriage, if you will, with an athletic program that yields, i think, incredible citizenry for the united states. in addition to everything that's been said, i don't want to be

redundant, but we have not done a good enough job of expounding on the benefits that already exist through this rather remarkable and unique american system that i believe at all costs should be sustained, and i think by paying athletes, you're creating an unsustainable environment. i don't think there's any doubt about that. you're not going to pay tom and not be able to pay mary. if you think you are, you're naive. you're not going to be to do it. there's no mary out there that's going to tolerate that. anything that would render this very delicate situation that we're already in financially and make it even a little bit wobblier while universities are trying to make sure as they invest in these athletic programs they continue to flourish, i would raise my hand and vote against paying athletes ten times over. >> well, and the issue is not only a gender related issue

because it's going to be a question of paying the football player and the basketball player and not paying the tennis player or the rower. so there's that issue as well. >> all of it. >> tom, you come at this from a number of perspectives, just like len and lisa do. what's your thought on this? >> well, they should be paid, and that's definitional. let me explain. if you were going to start over and rebuild college sports in america, first of all, you may not want to put it on your universities. we're the only nation that has done that, where we have this tail wagging the dog, but more importantly, if you had a system that was generating billions of dollars, you would certainly address the equities for the players. when len and i were teammates at maryland, we got $15 a month in laundry money. so did every other athlete. when i introduced legislation in 1991, i created a reform bill, and i provided for $300 stipend for every athlete. the fact is i do think you could create equities across the board

for every athlete women, men, where they get a basic stipend that allows them to have, you know, a life, and i think that there is plenty of money in college sports if you took the dollars that are out there and redistributed them. and the fact of the matter is it's just a matter of time before this system blows up because there's so much going on that this system will blow up and we'll be back here sitting there saying should the players receive more? everybody says they get an education. but i have yet to see one study, one strong study, that shows me across division one kids leaving ten years after they have left what has happened to them. i would like to see that because you tell me that they get an education. i'd like to see what type of life these kids who didn't go into the nba are living, and i think that would be the ultimate proof. yes, i think they deserve

equities, whether you call it pay or not. i don't think they need to be employees. i think it's a way to bring them a piece of the pie. >> okay. chris? >> i don't disagree with the overall goal of allowing financial aid to expand to the point where the true cost of participating in a college sport is covered. i think we've been on record for a long time, especially those in the well resourced conferences of saying that's where we need to be. there were votes on this years ago and, again, because of the unwieldiness of our overall governing body, we couldn't get to a consensus and today we're faced with this in courts. but the whole idea of remuneration for someone who is a -- the age group we're talking about is 17 to 23-year-olds who often make a decision to go an institution for various reasons, and once we talk to them about the college experience, sports is only part of it. the real college athletics

experience begins in the admissions office. they've got to meet some criteria. they've got to agree to some benchmarks, and, frankly, it's a volunteer type of situation. no one is twisting your arm to embark upon what today ncaa and division one athletics requires. it's not easy, and it's not for everybody. if it was, everybody would be doing it freely. but they come with a gift. they do have to adhere to academic goals and standards and progress to degree in order to even maintain eligibility, but it's not remuneration and it's not pay for play. i think the amount of dollars we generate -- everybody mixes revenue with sort of free cash flow. what we do with revenue goes right back against the experiences for these young people, and there are some student athletes that leave college with debt. if they're on a partial scholarship, they could leave with some debt, which is why

we're very much wanting cost of attendance or that delta to be able to be covered by well resourced institutions if they can, and it will be permissive legislation, but the notion that this is a pay for play activity flies right in the face of what it's really about. you go back to the' 50s, daryl royal when we got his job at the university of texas in '57 went to the athletics council of texas and said i have my coaching staff, now i want one more coach, and they said, well, what do you need another coach for? he said i don't want this coach to know anything about football. i want this to be my academic and -- he called him the brain coach. his name is lan hewlett. this was in 1957, and daryl's comment to the athletics council, which was comprised of faculty and some donors and alumni, he said it does me absolutely no good to bring these young men into this college setting and not have them advance to a degree.

they're going to be playing football and i'm serious about it, but what really matters to me is that they finish with a degree. and, again, roll forward how many years later, we're talking about that same equation. it still starts with the classroom experience and you get to represent your institution in sport. >> shane? >> i guess i have the benefit of going last and agreeing with everyone, at least in part with each, if not all with some. i would position myself somewhere between the two ends. one saying that in reflecting on the last panel, who at the very least was very entertaining. i don't know if we can live up to the bar they set, but i think they concluded with making comments about how we seem to be focused on the 1% of the student athlete who brings an awful lot of talent to the table and then matriculates to the nba, the nfl, et cetera, and we sort of are ignoring the 99% of the

others. now, having said that, i will defer to my elders and say i have always heard about laundry money and have always thought that we should have something like that. i'm not sure why it ended back then, but we do have young men and women that could use a little more to function around our campuses and our college towns. having said that, i think we've also lost sight of, and maybe this is just personal, there's thousands upon thousands of young boys and girls out there who don't get to play at the bcs level or even the fb c or the fcs and would give their left arm to have the privilege of doing what our young people do on our college campuses, and so i'm somewhere between everyone. i do believe, and the word equities was used previously, and i think that's a very good term. at the same time, i believe that some of the individuals on the previous panel were talking about what number do you put on our current full rides. i heard $60,000, $70,000,

$80,000 by the time you factor in -- and chris is the expert on this. everything from gear to travel to medical to all the things that we do compensate our young people with, but i'm sure we'll flesh all of these points out as we go along. >> that's a really good point because i think that leads to the next question, which is what is the cost of attendance? how do we quantify what a student athlete should get? you know, we know what they do get now depending what university they're at. at kansas i'm sure you could tell me what that figure is. but what should that figure be, what should it include, and what should it not include? anybody have any thoughts? j >> i can say since tom brought up the $15 of laundry money -- >> he still owe you something? did he borrow something from you? >> no. like i said, we had a lot of dirty laundry because at $15 a month went to anything from buying a record or having an

opportunity to go on a date once a month for those of us who didn't have any other resources. but to me, again, one of the things we need to focus on when we talk about full cost of attendance and subsidizing the difference is we also have to talk about need. you know, so many times we think across the board, but there are athletes -- student athletes who don't have that need, that demonstrated need for those dollars, be it because they come from a family of means or they've had other types of means. but in the end, you know, i think it is being a part of the university community, being on a level that, you know, makes you feel like you're part of this community. as i said, whether it's being able to buy a tape, being able to go to the movies, being able to do something that the average student is capable of doing. and i think that we lose sight of the fact that it's not just about, you know, when people make the argument paying for the

services rendered. this is about making you feel as though you're part of the university instead of feeling as though you're isolated and something different. so, you know, can i itemize and categorize each and every one of those things, not necessarily, but it's like that one thing the supreme court said. you know it when you see it, and you understand it. but going back to the situation where, you know, you have administrations and others of institutions speaking of the inability to be able to put those resources forward, again, i still believe that if it's need based and across the board in all of athletics, i think it's certainly something that is affordable and certainly necessary. but overall, and i want to get back to something that tom said real quickly, when you talk about the athletes and what do they do ten years from now? i think that's something else we haven't focused on, and that is, you know, learning to develop

some type of advocacy, whether students are advocates for themselves or others in being able to get the education that they truly want. you know, the impetus is on the student athlete, and the student athlete has to be an advocate for their education. so if you're practicing beyond the time you need to study, if you're going to miss an exam or be placed at a disadvantage for an exam, you should be able to say that and be able to attend the class or attend the exam without fear of retribution or retaliation which, unfortunately, i believe exists, and so -- >> that's a bigger issue because you know having played that -- >> that is something that certainly has to be focused on, and, again, once it becomes the responsibility of the student athlete, if you take away that fear, to be advocates for themselves. there are some who say they're not capable of doing it, and i disagree because, you know, you have athletes who they're not getting enough playing time, i can guarantee you they will be the best advocates they can

possibly be. it's all a question of desire. >> yes? >> i was going to comment, if you were going to start over again, which i'm going to suggest, in an ideal world you would want in your national interest to have a lot of minor sports because that's good for your olympic movement, that's the way we impress young people around the world and countries, the third world nations by having a strong olympic movement, very important. it's also very important that we have strong title 9. so if you're starting with that pretext, i say we need to have broad breadth programs on our college campuses. then you look at equities and you say, okay, look at the present situation. lookathat the ncaa takes down in administrative costs and look at all the conferences, with all due respect. you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and if you had to rationalize the system over again and create equities, certainly players across the board would get their full cost of attendance and a little money

to live on. that's not paying them. that's just looking at the situation and saying does the average football coach in this country need $1.6 million when the president is making $300,000? the highest state employees across the country are football players. i mean, i'm all for paying players -- coaches a lot of money and i'm all for big-tim college sports. i am for big-time college sports but the money needs to be handled differently. players have equities and minor sports are important. our olympic efforts are important. our gender equihe caequity are . >> how realistic is that though when there's such competition to win, when winning is so important? >> it doesn't have anything to do. when i played -- lenny and i played at maryland. the coach made $25,000. we played just as hard and winning was just as important. the idea that there's some kind of cognizant connection between winning and money is ludicrous.

you play. i'll tell you, you said how realistic? i'll tell you today that there's going to be legislation introduced in the lame duck session to establish a presidential commission to study intercollegiate athletics my jim moran and it's going to model what happened with jerry ford in the olympic effort in the '70s, and there are going to be some serious efforts to try to take a look at this and ask the big question, what is in our national interests as a country? and i think those are the things we ought to think about. >> so you're advocating for olympic sports as a component of the culture to make our society better. >> the reality is going to be, this is still a big business, whether we like it or not. are you going to tell me when you have a committee like that and you have politicians on board making decisions, the lobbyists from the networks and other people aren't going to have impact? we've got to factor all those things in. >> the most important asset in

america today is our system of higher education, universities and college approximates. >> i don't disagree. >> if you want to have an innovation economy, if you want to have jobs for the future, don't screw up your universities. the point is athletic departments can be very important but it can be done in a balanced, reasonable way, and i think that's going to be the challenge over the next 20 years whether it happens by congress or it happens because of the courts. you're going to be facing a day of reckoning, and i just think it's a time to look at what's important to us as a country, and that's really the message. >> go ahead. >> i think that discussion is fair because the model of higher education is challenged as well in this country. so, again, having athletics as part of the fabric of an institution is what we're trying to hang onto here because if anything, we want to be an asset. you know, there are very few things in life right now where you can teach young people how to be competitive, and it's not about winning. it's about preparing and about learning what it takes of your

own personal talent and fortitude to learn to compete in this world. i wish i could find another analogy or another activity that is as beautiful as sports to do that. and it's really hard to find that on our campuses today. i look at our 508 young men and women, student athletes. i tell them every year at orientation, we have a staff of 350 people here who are ultimately talented. we have ph.d.s in our academic center, experts in our sports medicine staff, we have career counselors, we have event experts, we have people that can run facilities, sustain our budgets. they all choose to work in this environment why? because they really care about the 500-plus so that are in our care. they're other people's children. they are turned over to us, some are on full scholarship, some on partial, they all get to represent their university, and they're on a regimen that is unbelievable, and we have to

fund it. so whenever you ask why espn paid the university of texas for a linear channel and what we do with those dollars, we put them right back against those experiences to keep those 350 people on payroll that directly service those young people, to hire the best in each of those. if charlie strong is the best football coach on the planet, and we think he is, why would we hire an academic counselor who was any less of an expert in that area or a sports medicine chief who wouldn't be able to get us through concussion protocol and all the things facing the complications of student athletes in competition. so i really believe that in the ecosystem that are our universities, we want to be an asset. we want to self-sustain, and if we're so lucky because of support, attendance, ticket sales, revenue generation that we can not only sustain our operation but give money back to the institution for academic endeavors, which we do, to help the president fund chairs and

other things on the academic side because they're getting cutbacks from state funding and all the other things that ultimately fund all of our state intutions, we should be there to help, but if we begin to remunerate the operation, remunerate the participants, that breaks that model. right now we're trying to sustain the financial aid model, participation model, and be part and an asset to our institutions. >> the cost of attendance question that you asked earlier. this was something at both universities i have been associated with, university of southern california and arizona state that we looked at deeply. lynn actually described a lot of it, about the additional money beyond where it's currently calculated for a student athlete. it encompasses -- the estimations are different on campuses but things like laundry and food and the ability for a young person to travel home, to get to and from their home, or there's just a built-in life

list, and that gap of the current full scholarship to what they would estimate at usc to be full cost of attendance is significantly different than in tempe because cost of living in los angeles is so much more expensive. so there has been significant discussion as well about how to funnel what is needed to a higher need student coming into this particular -- coming into a university environment. all those things i think are great part of discussions, and i can say this now because i'm retired, and i'm free to say it, but i actually would think and in a way would welcome a congressional review because there's so much positive that's under wraps because of the focus on just a couple of things. one of the primary being coaching salaries. you know, it sends off an alarm

clock everywhere. and i understand that. and i understand it forcing questions, but if you did a deeper dive in researching exactly what goes on on a college catch puce acampus and the commitment to the academics and the fact we are graduating football and basketball players in particular at well over 70%, i don't think the rate was 70% when you were playing, tom. i'm being respectful, but it's absolutely marvelous. and if you follow the track for ten years, and i need to be careful because i can't cite the source of the study. my memory is not good enough but the average income for an american with a college degree over a lifetime is $1 million more than the average income of an american without. so while we've heard it ad nauseam, the 1% that makes it and is able to be talented enough to play professional sports and make their living

therein, that's fantastic, but for the most part, professionals would welcome a deeper dive to look at what's really going on to facilitate the growth in education and that undergraduate degree at least many are getting master's degrees while they're still playing, but it's all happening actually. we just have a focus on an issue that's become larger than life, and so the guts of the deal is overlooked, and the guts of the deal is pretty special. >> lisa, what you're talking about i think is a very important point. it comes to the heart of my industry, the mainstream sports media. i can say the male dominated mainstream sports media. dear, dear friends of mine, people i went to college with, people i adore but you hear them always -- you guys know it -- football, basketball. they don't even bother that with pesky adjective men's. it's already been said up here. in 2014 we should be able to say men's basketball and women's basketball and men's lacrosse and women's lacrosse.

you know, and i think most of us probably do. but it's as if there are two sports, to your point about where is the deeper dive. there are two sports. there's football and men's basketball. and nothing else matters. nothing else exists. it is just clouded our vision and just totally -- >> money has a way of doing that. >> it does, but also a lack of -- i'll be critical of our college media. we have not done a good job of explaining that most people, as chris was alluding to, most people are doing it well. most of these people are graduating. most of them are giving back as i said earlier to their communities for the next 50 to 60 years. most are not getting arrested. most are not standing on tables and screaming vulgar things, not to mention any particular names. and i wonder, and i will just throw this out and maybe -- i don't want to preempt you jimmy on where you're headed with this, but the public.

we hear so much about this side of what we've been describing and the football coach and the men's basketball coach and attendance and money and all that and i'm a capitalist. we all are, i get it. i absolutely get it, but i wonder when we'll start hearing the voice of the mom and dad who are paying full freight for the kid who, by the way, the student fees go to help out athletics in many cases as i understand it. and when they start hearing there's more and more and more for athletics, i'm not expecting moms and dads around the country to go march here on d.c. and have some kind of a riot or whatever. i don't think we're going to see that, but we know for a fact that when you talk to fans, they don't want to see athletes being paid. i know that in one of the cases that have been litigated, a source of mine told me they didn't want to go to a jury because a jury could easily say no to paying athletes and no to the likeness issue and whatever. again, there's a lot there. we could be for weeks discussing these issues obviously.

but i think it's very important to step back, and i don't think we've done a good job in the media of stepping back and saying what about all of the people who finally say enough is enough and i'm sick of this and i'm not going to buy season tickets anymore or i will buy season tickets to softball because i just don't want this -- i said earlier be careful what you wish for, and i think journalistically one of the main things we have to do is to focus on these issues because there is a whole other side to this story that by and large is not being heard because of my wonderful friends in the mainstream sports media who have beat the drum on the two revenue sports to the extent of avoiding everything else. >> let me just say one thing before i give you an opportunity to speak. i think that to play devil's advocate for one second, there are certain aspects -- you can be fully in line with what you're thinking and recognize the fact there are certain aspects of the way the situation s the status quo, that's just

untenable. wasn't oscar robertson a co-defendant in the o'bannon trial because his likeness -- when did he graduate from the university of cincinnati? co-plaintiff, excuse me, i misspo misspoke. that can't be right, and something like that needs to be recognized that, you know, almost 60 years later the likeness of an athlete is still controlled by the university, you know, that he played for. so, i mean, i think you can be on board with the larger thought but kind of understand some things in the engine room, some nuts and bolts need to be changed. shane? >> you know, i think something that can't get overlooked here is what tom spoke of. he sent up a warning flare that sports in america is dear to all of our hearts. it's as important as anything in our country. it's probably gotten bigger than what we want it to be. james mitchell, one of our great authors of the lost century wrote a book called "sports in

america." it's decades old but it speaks to so much of what we're talking about. i do believe it will end up in your shop. i think anything this important to all of us is going to end up in our nation's capital. there's a reason why we're here today. having said that, i don't want to lose sight of something len said earlier. talking about need based and i'm going to reflect back to when i was a young football coach at the university of wyoming of all places in 1997 making a salary much less than what people do today in this business. i remember distinctly at that time full ride scholarship skill existed for football players as they do now and let's be reclear. what a full ride encompasses is taking johnny or suzy from an inner city or a rural farm and putting them in your college town and giving them -- they now go to school just like they did in high school and they get their books and they get their food and they are remunerated

for the things that you basically have before college. now, in light of that, i have this distinct memory of pulling up to football practice in a used car, ten-year-old used car which was just fine and having a young man who came from a family of means pull up in a new suv. later in the week getting a phone call from a tutor telling me that another student athlete had not eaten for three days, a real case of that. now, that was during a break period. that never happened when school was in session but based upon rules at the time, you couldn't give them food or money for food during breaks at that time. and so i just want to underscore that and give real world examples that we try to paint this with a broad brush stroke and we're talking about real young men and women who are all caught in this mix that each have different stories, and i really believe it's going to end up in your shop. >> let me ask the administrator something here. isn't it difficult to administrate something like that when the rules aren't exactly the same for everybody?

>> our rule book is nearly impossible, but as the previous panel said, we are the ncaa. it's up to us to fix this, and we can fix it. i'm not sure we can fix enforcement though. the model that scott blackman talked earlier about when they were talking about the drug issues, drug use in olympic sports and he used the term -- we were the fox guarding the hen house and they created usada. i think there needs to be an outside organization with regard to our compliance, monitoring, and enforcement with some teeth in it, and so if that happens with a government-type agency, that's where we need to start on that because some of these rules about how we feed them, when we feed them, et cetera those are so easy to fix. but what you can't just fix is integrity, lack of ethics, and people that just want to play by a different rule book. that's hurting college athletics

and the nationwide perception of why college sports is good, why it matters, why there are benefits to it that are generational. if we can't fix our reputation, then it will be difficult to continue under the circumstances, and the ultimate insult to the full boat paying parent on your -- at your alma mater, all of our alma maters, is that there's something going on on our campus where an admissions slot is created for an activity that isn't consistent with the university's mission and values. there should be benchmarks to be able to stay at northwestern and arlington and maryland and the university of texas and kansas. >> but is that realistic? is that ever going to happen as long as there's this need to win and the best basketball player or the best football player doesn't qualify? >> absolutely. >> how do you do that? >> if, in fact, as tom mentioned there is a collective -- in the national interest of politicians, those who have the

power to grant things like an antitrust exemption on a limited basis to allow a body like the ncaa and i'm not saying this particular makeup, but at some point a central body, a central authority that's going to be able to impose a lot of the things without having to worry about, you know, having some kind of antitrust litigation against them. because that's really what it is. back in the old west when you had, you know, a bunch of gangsters out there, you had to hire a strong marshal out there who could do just about anything that they needed to to clean it up. that's where we're heading. i didn't want my position misunderstood. you know, i agree with tom. the point i was making though is let's get rid of the tail wagging the dog mentality, which is what we have in college sports right now where the university admission is secondary to the mission of athletics. we have to go back to that. the only way you're going to go back to it once again is if

there is, as i mentioned before, some central body strong enough to be able to enforce, you know, the rules and to be able to apply sanctions, to be able to make decisions that ordinarily would be considered maybe anti-competitive or some type of antitrust violation but nevertheless because of the unique position as tom mentioned that sports holds -- college sports holds in our national interest, that somebody has to be able to do it, and based on a rule of reason which is part of an antitrust examination, that would be the reason why you provide that limited exemption. the exemption can list the whole range of things that the ncaa or whatever body it is has to accomplish and has to continue, and it can be reviewed on an annual or every two years for the success. if there's no success and no willingness to step up to the line, you remove it, and we're back in the same position.

or you change the leadership. but something strong like that has to be done, and i think that that congressional oversight review is the first step towards that. >> tom? >> real quickly. you know, listen, i agree with everybody on this podium that says that college sports is very good and very positive. so start there. we just need to figure out how to make it positive for all of the participants, including our universities. if you look back in the '70s, i was on the '72 olympic team. we had a really tough olympics. a number of members of congress put in bills saying we need a presidential commission to look at this, the north carolina, the aau, everybody is fighting, nobody is in control. they fortunatelied a presidential commission made up of lay people and members of congress. they passed a bill. it became the amateur sports act, but here is the point. it gave the olympic committee the authority to finally be in charge. what has happened in college sports is nobody is in charge.

there's a lot of people in charge but nobody is really in charge, and so i think that that failure has caused all this -- all these problems, and what's happening is we're seeing this unwinding of this because it's going to the courts and everything else, and we're heading towards this chaos theory which i think ultimately will ask us how do we fix it? and i think that's sooner rather than later. >> so why isn't the ncaa in charge? >> because they don't. first of all, they don't control football. you have all the conferences that have all their strengths. you have -- they don't -- as mark emmert said in front of the senate commerce committee, i believe, he said i'm really not fully in charge here. he even admitted that he has limits on his power. i fully recognize that. quite frankly, i'm looking for a ben neve lent dictator in college sports to take all the good and make it work for all the things that we like about college sports, and that's just my position. i just don't know what -- i

think we're going to head down a road where we're all going to be forced into this position. >> i was going to ask, you mentioned it before. we may be headed towards a day of reckoning. do you honestly, all of you folks, do you think that we're getting close to that day where the situation is going to become so impossible that it's going to need to be addressed by congress? how close are we? >> i don't necessarily think congress. i said it could be the presidential commission, but ultimately there's got to be some congressional involvement. with this supreme court, i imagine this stuff could go all the way to the supreme court. with this supreme court who knows, but i would also say that's not a good thing either. having all this litigation in the public eye is not good for college sports, and i think that it really tarnishes all the good work that everybody in this room is doing, and i see more and more of this coming. like lenny pointed out. and that really bothers me. we need to get the cows back in the barn here and run this thing --

>> what you need is oversight. >> you have to give the central authority a shield from the chinks in the armor, the death via a thousand cuts, if you will, and allow the right leadership to do what tom said, the benevolent dictator to make the rules and to be able to enforce the rules. >> draw up the perfect situation. just spitball it right here. what is it xexactly? >> once again, make it impervious to the litigation going on right now. give it the opportunity to have subpoena power, the power to apply the sanctions, and the outside authority i think makes perfect good sense simply because, again, there's no conflict of interest, if you will, as you might have now where the organization, ncaa, is made up of member institutions. some of them obviously under investigation themselves. i think that makes a situation that, you know, can be untenable, but more than

anything else, the list of reforms that are required, you know, to have that shield conditioned upon achieving those lists of reforms. and those reforms have to go to the benefit of the student athlete. if it goes to the benefit of the student athlete, then you put the dynamic back in whack again where there's not the tail wagging the dog, that universities can now continue to be in the business of developing leaders as opposed to in the business of, you know, the arms race where you have to continue to build facilities and do things to be better than your competitor. i mean, and that levels the playing field. once you have that central authority, as i said, cleaning up the wild west, then everybody falls in line. you create a new culture. since the board of education, oklahoma regents versus the ncaa, that's when it started to unravel. when the ncaa lost its central

authority, and people also recognize there's a weakness there that we can go attack for our own interests, and i think that's where the problem was. and if you read justice white's dissent, it says essentially from a reasonable standpoint the uniqueness of college sports, you know, gives it -- makes it deserving of protection in some way, shape, or form. i'm not saying unfettered power, but nevertheless, it's conditioned upon achieving these goals for the benefit of the student athlete, which in turn obviously knocks it back to the dynamic of letting universities develop leadership. you know, whether you're controlling coaches' salaries, whether you're eliminating competition that's affecting adversely the ability of student athletes to study, to do things. in football tuesday, wednesday, thursday games, i mean, that's kind of silly, and, you know, i run the risk of biting the hand that feeds me when espn and

others are contracting these games, but that's their business. that's how they make money. you know, we've got to be able to balance that, because it is a big business, and we can't ignore that point, but still it's the student athlete benefit that has to be in central focus. once you do that, i think everything else falls in place. >> anybody else? >> i just think, again, the student athlete benefit, which is alwal of our focus -- it's hd to make the public believe that, but it truly is why we work. it's why we show up every day, and i believe it's why alumni continue to have social gatherings around events and give to their alumni association and keep coming back to sustain. it's why they're proud of their schools, proud of their teams, and proud of the multigeneration effect of this thing we call college sports, but if you don't view the services provided in addition to the opportunity and

just the sheer access to higher education as a benefit, if that's going to be shrouded in are they paid enough? are they serviced enough? are they remunerated enough, at some point a college president has to look at our enterprise and say, what value is it continuing to bring to the institution? and i think right now we continue to have value because we can sustain leadership qualities in young people. if they do get their degrees while they're experiencing a competitive sports experience, they'll be a better and more marketable citizen. they will be employable. they'll bring something to the table for a greater good somewhere, but if they come in as a 17-year-old expected to work their way through that system, that model of educational, leadership, maturity, development, it really skews it from the start, and i

think we would lose it in spades. >> jimmy, i wonder, too, when does the public just say enough is enough? i know because the -- everything sounds so great here and i agree with you and yet we know salaries are going up and more people are going up and i'm sure if anyone is watching us on c-span who is a big fan, enough of that, i want to know, you know, how we're going to play this week and are we going to fire our coach or have we got the big recruit going so we have all this going but we saw something very interesting that i have been covering quite a bit since september 8th. of course, that was the day that the ray rice second elevator video hit, and i think sports as we know it may be changed forever. i know that sounds very dramatic and might be over the top, but i'll just pose this thought. that a league worth billions, the national football league, the biggest thing in our country in terms of a one-sport league,

literally buffeted and shaken from its moorings by twitter, by social media, my mainstream media to the point where the apologies from roger goodell, the changes, the immediate suspension of a man who had already been suspended. wait until he gets reinstated bu the union, that's a whole other issue, ray rice. but things really change. we really saw something remarkable happen that week, september 8th onward in this country in terms of the way a league had to respond to the people. and so going forward i don't have an answer here, it's more of a question, and maybe for some of you who i would normally be interviewing as opposed to be joining on a panel -- >> you keep on taking my job. >> sorry about that. but i'm curious if something like that, what happened, that seminal moment september 8th with the ray rice video, if, you know, if fans get disgusted. the jameis winston thing, as i alluded to, florida state, what

are we on, six, seven, eight things he's done. it's appalling. >> let's switch hats for a second and let me just say this. as not only someone who is a member of the media but as a fan of college sports, i will be shocked if we ever get to the point where people abandon their fanaticism for sports because of something, you know, as real and as serious as what you're talking about. it's just not going to happen. >> no, but will they say i'm disgusted and say, you know, i don't want to pay athletes? will it become fans just saying enough is enough? will those fans even be listened to because they're not buying the season tickets or buying the package or watching espn or whatever they're doing? i guess what i'm saying is we should have our minds maybe, jimmy, open to anything because i never would have envisioned what happened with the nfl september 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th. >> this is a little bit different. the nfl situation was such that everything moved so quickly. you know, they didn't have a

chance to make up stories. they didn't have a chance to lie because of the transparencies due to the speed. >> florida state has plenty of opportunity to lie and make stuff up? >> you know, well, they have. >> they sure have. >> we've seen that, and it didn't come out as quickly enough. in the end, christine, i agree with you there has to be some kind of gruound swell of disgus to put it in the terms you did that the thing that everyone loves, that they go to saturdays or, you know, during the week in basketball, in either gender's basketball, all those things they love are getting perverted by other factors out there that aren't really the purity of the sport. the problem is i don't think that they know enough. i think that there's been so much misinformation, so much perversion and disfiguring of the culture that people -- many people think this is the way it's supposed to be. this is the way it's supposed to -- it's supposed to operate instead of recognizing, one

against going back to the basics, that this is for the student athletes who go out and, you know, they will go out there and demonstrate their skills, but in return, you know, they're getting an getting opportunity develop into leaders that ultimately are going to have impact on us as a nation. and that just -- not just what we watch on tv. i don't think people see it enough. >> you know, i wish self-reform would work. having been at this for a long time, i think it would be better. one example, the university of maryland, board of regions, i'm on the board, we passed something in committee last week where we won't give an coach an athletic bonus until he hits a minimum apr until that season. there's not a school in the country that does that, not a system across the country. that means that coach can't flunk his team out and get hundreds if not millions of dollars of athletic -- >> they have to care. >> yeah. and that was hard.

that's hard. why hasn't that been adopted across the country. amy out there, commission's been working on this for 20 years, but years ago, in the '90s, there were no coaches making a million. today, you know, there are -- >> many. >> hundreds of coaches making a million dollars. i mean, are we going to be back here 20 years, this is what i'm concerned about. i just wish this thing could clean itself up, but its had plenty of opportunities, and it hasn't happened. and to your point, all these external forces are going to make it more likely that we're going to have a day of reckoning. >> i do think though that coaches have to care, based on the standards and the academic standards that are ratcheting up, and the fact that because of apr and because of gsr, if you aren't disearning and recruiting, if you do not get a young lady or a young man who comes to fit your campus and truly want to be a student in addition to participating, you're not in a situation where you can just run them off and

survive. >> no. >> you go below the apr, we saw the national championship basketball team from last year miss the tournament for a year. >> without enforcement, obscure, and swift, and reasonable enforcement. all that does is promote renegades, and you have academic fraud. we only see the tip of the iceberg. a do a lot of games, been doing this over 25 years and in college basketball, and you can talk to athletes, you can recognize, you know, who's on the ball, who's not. who can do college work, who or who's capable and who's not. what happens is, and i agree with you that coaches have to care, but, unless they're given the insent tifz to care even more, which means as time, you're talking about tieing someone's bonus to apr. what happened to tieing somebody's bonus to, you know, a number of kids who graduate in meaningful majors and some of the other things. all that does, in many

instances, allow the renegades to get away with stuff. that's why you need, i think it was your idea of getting outside enforcement to make sure that there's a monitor there and there's a distance center to do some of those things to get them around the apr and the gsr consideration. >> i would tell you today, just given the way universities operate, it's, it's different to fraud the academic system. what i worry about is the recruiting front on the front side. what's incentivizing people to go to particular campuses and what's keeping them there. again, and coaches have bosses too. i mean, you've got to hire a coach that fits your campus, that fits the profile of your campus and what the alumni expects the athletics to be on your campus. i hate to keep using texas analogies, but there's no more high profile job at ut than a football coach. and the coach makes hard

decisions. there are ten young men no longer in uniform. now our fans could be, you know, put off by that, but he had five bas basic rules to follow, if you can't follow them, you can't play for texas. our fans right now admire what they've done. he cares about the character of his young people, and he said it's a pri line of scrimmage to play here, and as long as you follow these rules, you can represent our institution. those young men will be better, and if they go to the nfl, i hope we're sending young men of character to the nfl where when they are paid and compensated for their gifts and skills, they'll still be a good citizen and a heck of a player in the nfl. >> here's the rough -- >> you have to continue to stand by that. there are some universities that won't stand by it. you know, the value of the balance will now go the other way. you haven't won enough games. i don't care how moral you are, you know, we're in the business of winning football games. >> that's right. >> i believe that's where texas is and we have a men's a.d.

who's 6'4" and post you guys up too. [ laughter ] >> okay. because in the end, look, this is, i mean these are games which are about winning. and i think that unfortunately, what we've seen historically is the winning component of this is much more important, or certainly equally as important as, you know, the idea that you are shaping an individual and helping to contribute to society. and that's the unfortunate part of it. that's the inbalance i think. what's the break? to your point, what's the breaking point for college athletics? when do we get to the point of outrage, is it possible we could ever, could you imagine getting there? yeah, go ahead. >> that's depressing, but a lot of this is. at the risk of sounding like the eternal optimist. i kind of look at issues facing us in our industry right now and put along issues in front of

congress. here in washington, d.c. every day. it seems like where an impasse on all social issues. and i don't, we're the greatest country that's ever been with some of the greatest minds that's ever lived and we're struggling with solving some of these issues that confront us. at the same time, i'd like to look back at last few decades in college athletics and i think back to a time that i was watching 60 minutes with my dad back in the 1970s, and there was this expose on cleveland athletics and johnny can't read and this and that. and you know, that's back when you only had to be enrolled in six hours per semester, and so on, so forth -- >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this, take you live to the museum in washington d.c. where politico is hosting two members of the senate health education labor and pensions committee. bob casey of pennsylvania and richard burr of north carolina. they'll be talking about public health emergency preparedness, introductions under way by joann

kennen who is the politico's health care editor. >> thank you for coming out to this cvs briefing to discuss preparedness for public health challenges. certainly the last several months have been a case study for epidemics like ebola. but the challenges illustrated highlight other serious health issues that will have an impact on the health system in the future. we're going to continue to impact with other epidemics like flu, obesity, chronic disease, and tobacco use. this is clearly a very important topic to cover today. so we're very pleased to be joined by senators burr and senator casey, and we're pleased that you're here with us today, joann, thank you very much. and over to you. >> cvs, thank you for your support. before we get started, don't forget to tweet your questions, #prohcbb. usually we have a breakfast breeting, that's why it's bb. we'll be tracking via the tablet i have up here.

and without further delay, i'm thrilled to welcome to the stage, senator richard burr and senator bob casey. [ applause ] we've had scheduling problems, your staff worked hard to get you here, and lame duck is going to be rather duck. we're glad to have you today. >> it's going to be lame. >> right. i guess, you know, we gone through -- we were talking ourselves, and one of the questions we had is, you know, there's -- we sort of look back and, you know, 10 or 15 years ago we had a complacency in the country that we thought public health was old and we didn't have to deal with it anymore. public health hadn't kept up. and then we had 9/11, anthrax.

and then you came along and filled in some gaps with bipartisan legislation. originally 2006, it's got a very long name which i wrote down. the pandemic all hazards, preparation act. and it has two different acronyms. one was probably the democrat acronym, you call it papa and reauthorized it. i'd like to talk a little bit about -- it's a shared, it was bipartisan from the beginning, you've worked together, there's funding issues going forward. we just had something that was a crisis that the public fear was disproportionate to what actually happened. but things did not go perfectly. there's things great, things did wrong, some luck, right? i mean, could have been better, could have been worse. where -- you know, as you watch things unfold, what do you think

has to be done next? >> let me just back up on something you said that's the public health change. it did change. we wrote a new definition for public health. i would tell you post-katrina, and you had a lot of events that went up, but katrina was the thing that i think acknowledged for everybody, somebody has to be in charge. you can't have a bunch of people pointing fingers. you can't have folks sitting around waiting for somebody they thought was going to do something to actually do it. and so, we resolved that as it related to, at least those threats they were material threats listed by the department of homeland security relative to the blueprint bob and i were working off of. i think that when you look at the current threat of ebola, and you ask what shook the trust of the american people. it was a total lack of communication. and i think when you look