never underestimate a college keg party. or here is the deal, i am in college with a guy named jamie dixon, a basketball coach. i i'm coming in. we can conquer the big east in 2009. this is it we need to talk to. .hat was our our audacious goal they maintain their points. we came in, there was a perfect marriage. who knew missouri in a and m were going to leave? we would have been content in the big east knowing what we knew then. because of our geography and done what we are able to get into the big 12.

there's no magical number. boise has done wonderful things with their investments. look around san diego state, cincinnati, connecticut. you look, you put cases -- part of it is our geography. and our success. we were successful. >> cincinnati as an example, they have an operating debt in the tens of millions of dollars. they are paying money every year , in some form or fashion, someone is paying interest on that debt. that was a decision made by the university to make the investment, going back to the question of what you were asking. they have done things to facilities. you look at the 12 since the

television contract. these are schools that were established schools. you look at what has gone on andin the facilities boom the page of football coaches particularly in the conference. it has been a huge increase. they didn't have to ante up to get in. they were already there. you have to -- you're still playing the game. is amazing., it wellee this, you know this at arizona state in terms of withities and the quest the sport village that went on there. all that was being seized by that television line.

that is where the nt is. it is in the facilities, coaching salaries. >> are you looking at it to black-and-white? you were saying you were a cynical journalist. someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. people who think about the university of texas, what is the football team adding to the brand? differ recruiting professors and top students and .aving matthew mcconaughey inre is cynicism involved either they have made a profit or they didn't and there wasn't other benefits that happened, whether that is the 50 year plan or the building of the brand

that is the university. the first thing we have sent to cities where we are looking at an olympic dig -- olympic bid. if you are trying to make money as a first line you are not going at it for the right reasons. tois not that we want them be cost overrun and be burdens on cities. you have to see a bigger picture than black-and-white. that is your job, to get to those numbers. there is some parent value beyond whether or not a profit or loss for those investments they are making. >> i will go beyond that value you are talking about. these economic engines for their communities on a weekend, in athens, georgia, oxford, mississippi, tuscaloosa, alabama . look at the amount of money that gets generated as a result. -- you talk about this

as a public policy piece. there are questions about that, enterpriset college is about? i'm not saying it is or it isn't. if you look at the value of , the value of a texas football program every saturday in austin in terms of hotel rooms occupied, people in restaurants after the ballgame, you drive up and down interstate in florida after a game in gainesville and the cracker barrel is full. every saturday night. that is what is going on. >> we need better restaurant choices. the academic improvement, think about tcu.

eight years ago our sat was where it was. , a perfect storm headed together. 10 years later we have 20,000 for 1600 spots. we are the brand of our institution. our sat and a cd have gone through the roof. the quality of student has gone through the roof. there is a presence of big sports. the greatest mistake was leaving the big ten. mainstream kids love college athletics. they love it. we are packed every game. it is a wonderful experience. win, lose, draw it is the fiber of our institution. make 90%reat, but we

of the media. that brand, we are a good regional institution. through the rise of sports we have changed the face of tcu. i firmly believe that. there is some value to that. when you only make between 3-5% of a institutional budget and the engine that is the university academic achievement and greatness, and you are a small portion of that, we focus so much on that small portion and not the total telling -- the totality of what we bring of the table. >> is there difference in the calculus between the sports in terms of the way it needs to be managed going forward given the

amounts? enceg on one side of the fo versus the other. basketball is in trouble. i went to a game last year. i almost fell asleep. texas was good, tcu wasn't. [laughter] you name drop your chancellor so many times today. i really think college basketball, if you look at the ratings, they are flatline now. regular-season is completely irrelevant. i had a coach tommy at a recruiting event they had lead meetings and the espn person came in and said the wednesday

night game of the week, toledo throwing the ball around, it out rates california-do. we are in event driven culture. every saturday there is an event on campus. there is so much oversaturation. that is one of the negative reverberations. everyone is on tv. it is not special anymore. most guys in january i can watch my-10 games. i end up watching less. there is -- >> you are missing out on serious west coast hoops. this businessn covering college basketball. it is a compelling sport. there is no juice left in the regular season. oversaturation,

the prism through this sport is the tournament is three months away. it is great. there is nothing better in sports than in ca basketball tournament. it rates well. great storylines. the have-nots have a chance. regular-seasonow college basketball is an abysmal place. i don't see the genie going back in the bottle. >> i would totally agree with you there, about expanding the size of the football tournament, which be moving in that direction. that is a different discussion in terms of the money. uconn, they are not part of the big five. >> you can get away with it more

and basketball than in football. what realignment has taught us is that basketball doesn't matter. .ollow the money the money is in football. the money follows football. even a cc makes more money in football than in basketball. when was the last time you said i'm going to watch an acc football game. >> notre dame was good. >> i keep looking for maryland in the standings. >> there are a few reasons though. people want an emotional attachment to their institution or team, or their game. there are few institutional problems. both in the nba and college athletics is the one and done rule. it is bad for athletics.

the only people it is good for are the agents driving the top few guys that come out and can make it into the pros. it makes it more difficult to establish an emotional attachment with the fan. as soon as they get attached they are gone. and the number of transfers. 40% of college basketball players transfer after their second year. we should have fewer opportunities to transfer. we should have models more like baseball. if you want to go to the pros out of high school, go. knock yourself out. the other 200 guys that make they aref going early, limiting their lifetime earnings. they should stay in college and get a degree. that would be better for the product. is last thing we have to do a better job of marketing. air game presentation was terrible last year.

we are fixing that. when we roll out it is quaint to be dramatically different. you have to go out and work hard to get people to spend the time and entertainment dollars to come to your event. >> you are not going to have going forward in football one of the have-nots when a national championship. it is entirely possible that it could happen in basketball. why is that? does it cost less? >> you need one player. >> the game itself. >> what about the economics? is it easier to be a have not in college basketball? they are in have not conferences but marquette has a bigger budget. you don't even know what they are. we look at have and have-nots through a football. i'm exclusively. marquette, it is

where our traditions. basketball, traditionally, is more market driven for those schools that have built up a good reputation and those northeastern cities especially and stretched down, basketball costs less. you have 12-13 guys. staff is 1/8 of the size. you can do a lot more with less and basketball which is why butler was able to do what it did. league, foxtball put a dump truck of money. they could not say no. even though the ratings for miniscule. they barely registered like a little blip. i just think how completely different the sports are financially. you do need one player. they have a freshman recruit was going to be one and done. that transforms them from a very good team in the 12 foot potential final 14.

everything can turn on one player. back ingo all the way history. i don't think that has changed. >> to think of the expansion to the tournament, 60 teams. you think that has contributed to this? >> the expansion was basically to protect some of the have's. to give another at-large. i don't think that small tournament expansion has had a g factor. >> i think it is the number of tv games. there are so many games to watch. it is two different markets. audience.g we need to do a better job of

marketing and creating interesting environments. ,he pros have gotten so good the major leaks or minor leagues , college hasn't done as good a job across the board of creating a good environment for basketball. it go to this guys place and is rock 'n roll crazy for tennis. it is the thing you have to do for all of the sports. when you can get the emotional attachment because people are transferred every year or people are going the pros, it is a tough sell. >> and the conference room i'm at the thing. some of that was driven by financial considerations. a lot was driven by football. the trickle-down effect on that has been interesting. you have seen this shuffle continue its way down into various different leagues. alignments and games between teams that just don't feel a millionaire in a

way. -- feel familiar in a way. i think that has had an impact on it as well. drivenrtainly has been by financial considerations pre->> if i was a missouri basketball fan, and all of a sudden i am seeing auburn, kentucky, florida, all those other teams, mississippi state roles in. the cubicle factor. i live in boston. if you work in an office in since bc has gone to the acc they have a dreadful home attendance in basketball. there is no connection to crimson, the others. when florida state comes in, there's no reason to care. >> that is a separate issue from

what you were talking about before, the national ratings which drives the discussion. you as the athletic director, you want to create an exciting event on your campus. a national discussion is driven by how popular are these things in people's homes? college basketball is having a big problem. can you put the genie back in the bottle? >> it would help if you didn't have the one and done structure. >> what would you like to see? like the baseball set up. if someone wants to come up out of high school, let them go. they should be coming to university because they want to be a part of the university. they should not use it as a training ground to jump to the nba and make a joke of the university environment. >> that hurts the overall perception of college athletics when you have these tourist things. >> when i was the university of arizona they had a great basketball brand. now.tball was our belt

but the one and done doesn't hurt in arizona. it doesn't hurt kentucky. loyal.an base has been we have beeno tcu, to four tournaments and 60 years. when we are in the mountain west conference, it was better than big 12 in terms of basketball at one time. they had 5-16's. new mexico, san diego state not resonate. they are good teams. they did not resonate. >> you are right about the brand. you can follow those players for four years. luke brand was always olson. .e had an amazing record for us, all of a sudden we go to

the big 12, we had to invest. brand-newlding a basketball arena. why? our rent has basketball is nonexistent. if we're going to make any dent outside of exposure we are going to have to have a facility to recruit the finest to compete at the highest level. because we don't have a long history of basketball tradition. if you have the shiny new penny and you write it -- higher the ,ight coach, and they do care the same concert in basketball. basketball, the saturation numbers, we played a cbs game against kansas. we must be big money. $25,000 for a sunday cbs game. an abc game paid $500,000.

the saturation of college basketball has gone from big west monday, two every night of the week. the focus of much on the tournament that in college football for the moment every game is critical. it is a cautionary tale. you have 12 games. you are now watching the media going crazy. who is in, who is out? it is a six month juggernaut of your stomach being tied. every game means something. andcan win your tournament get in. >> for loser tournament and get him. from a fans perspective, i have interest as a fan in random teams because they learn about not oner 2-3 seasons,

and done johnny football. didn't know kevin durant played basketball at texas. what if he had been there for three or four years? then that product would have been interesting to watch as a casual fan versus just watching the tournament. >> the quality of bass, would have been better. >> the product that you were watching, why would i watch texas basketball? i don't know anything about him. i don't know their players. as a casual fan you do turn into the tournament. >> magic johnson left out of sophomore year. michael jordan after junior year. this is not a phenomenon that is recent. >> but it is getting worse. >> and it is getting more pronounced at certain schools. >> i will admit this. i'm going to media day tomorrow. for-five players.

if you go through the league i can't tell you who is coming back to washington state. maybe at usc. this is my job. and i don't know. the casual fan who likes sports and has nine games to watch is going to know. by the time he does the guy is gone. >> it hasn't affected their local fan base and their attendance. >> it is a different model for kentucky just like it is for texas football. wrape going to have to this up. close with a question to each of you. if you had to fix one thing regarding the money aspect of where we are headed, or one thing that concerns you the most on the road we are heading down what is it? >> one of the things where we

are headed now that is scary to as the lower tier schools in the big five, as they are able to build buildings to compete, to catch up, we could see a purge of nonrevenue sports to focus more money on the sports that matter financially most. i think that is a trend we are going to see and i don't think that is good for anybody. >> if we go down the road of pain football players as the agents and their agents would like us to do, i have plenty of lawyers, wert trial are going to be put in a situation as a series of enterprises that we are going to be followers to make that decision. you will see schools asked to go to 12. sports down

i've already set and meetings for those conversations. that is bad for the country and olympic sports. that is bad opportunities for people to get out of lesser environments and get to university and have a better outcome and live. >> we can't lose our voice. we've lost the opportunity for young people. , if you on financing think of college athletics, it is a failed business model and the way it is interpreted in the courts. we have two revenue streams. we are the largest theater of athletes for the olympics. opportunities for students across the spectrum have been phenomenal. because america has a appetite for football, all of a sudden we are running that program to fund our entire athletic program. they got we have that opportunity to provide that for

a lot of people. our voice is being lost by trial lawyers in the media that says everyone deserves a piece of the pile. we are providing opportunities for young people. i hope the train has left the station where we can regain some sanity from the amateur model. someone who play this port, football has become too big in america. it has become too overbearing. i feel we are losing sight of the things that make our universities great. the opportunity for women in sports. i don't just say that because i work at the olympic committee and would benefit from having robust programs that bring athletes to us. they come from sports that are part of the university. it is essentially part of the university life to have the sports program. as more revenue comes into sports through football and basketball, hopefully that money

will continue to filter into the world of olympic sports and women's sports to promote that on campus. >> last words. >> i agree with pete. the notion of a broad-based athletics program, it is becoming an endangered species. i think you're seeing some of disconnect of who the programs are for, and what is the purpose, and these events are going on on college campuses . andt about entertainment bread and circuses, is it part of what college is? whether or not that is going to happen or it is just going to become really heavily professionalized. and the impact of that across what college athletics programs look like.

patrick, chris. thank you for taking the time to join us. i want to remind everybody we have a form coming up shortly. we hope you will join us for that. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we will be back in 12 minutes the state of on college athletics. when they come back they will discuss the question, our student athletes employees? a similar question we have been asking, should college athletes the paid? several of you have posted opinions and comments. -- we want to hear from you. join the conversation.

c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues later today with a massachusetts governors debate between martha coakley and charlie baker. the race is a tossup. the debate is tonight. you can see it at 7:00 eastern. senator jeanne shaheen and scott brown. i'm jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. >> scott brown says i am pro-choice. forsponsored a bill employers to deny coverage for birth control. >> i can't support -- no wonder anti-choice groups

endorsed scott brown three >> i don't trust scott brown. >> you may have seen senator shaheen calling into question my support for women's health year. pro-choice. i support continued funding for planned parenthood. i believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama senator shaheen has resorted to a smear campaign. she knows better and people of new hampshire deserve better. i'm scott brown and i approve this message. >> i'm jeanne shaheen i approve this message. >> big oil companies are the most profitable on the limit. scott brown voted to give them $20 billion in subsidies. >> i don't trust scott brown for a minute. >> big oil gave the scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his votes. now big oil is spending millions to get him back to washington. >> scott brown is in it for

scott brown. >> i know what you're thinking, another ad. hear me out. senator jeanne shaheen said she puts you first. she votes with obama 99% of the time. that is for more spending, more debt. obamacare, come on. we have to put up with obama for two more years. but we can fire shaheen now. here's your video. >> recent polling has the race leaning democrat. .ee the debate tonight a south carolina governors debate with incumbent nikki haley. that race listed as likely republican. c-span,p tonight on just to let you know, on

washington journal, the center for responsive politics takes a look at political parleys in campaign spending. daniel garza discusses issues important to latinos in the election cycle. after that, newsweek contributing editor matthew cooper on the caucasian vote. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, tweets, wednesday and every day. this morning, one of our guest talked about early voting. here is what else he had to say about the reason people vote in the coming election.

>> there are over 2 million of you joining us. this, elect project.org. rally, aoing a real tally of early voting on your website? >> it comes close. we do lag a little bit because officials have to process the balance. some may be in the mail still. as of when election officials report the numbers i try and get the numbers updated as soon as i can. right now as of this morning we are looking at 2.5 million people have are devoted. >> do you see some trends? >> high turnout among the early

vote in these key senate battleground states. .articularly iowa we have passed the halfway mark 2010rly voting compared to in iowa. that is five days earlier than it occurred in 2010. we are on pace to have somewhere around 400,000 or so people vote on prior to the election which will be a record for midterm elections in that state. >> does this mean that this can help with predictions of how the election will turn out? >> it can and can't. there is so much activity going on. one of the things driving this early voting in iowa is the democrats and republicans have a mobilization.r project, anve the early voter and election day mobilization project that uses sophisticated voter targeting to

turn out the vote. the republicans have been biking behind -- have been lagging behind. americans for prosperity have mobilizations to kickstart what the republicans see as a disadvantage relative to the democrats. it is paying off. we see both parties have higher turnout. democrats are doing better. publicans have invested money and they are catching up more. now the democrats still lead. things have changed quite a bit. i hesitate to say. we still have a couple more weeks to go as to what it tells us. what i can say is that turnout will behind. -- turnout will be high in iowa. it is going to be a close race. >> i was not the only state.

how many others have early voting? what impact is happening on the cycle? >> all states have some form of early voting. some require an excuse to cast an absentee ballot. that is a quarter or so of the states. the other states have adopted more liberal laws in terms of no , then all mail voting, to in person early voting which is a number of states. texas, the first state that had in person early voting. there is a broad range of different types of early voting out there. i put them under one roof, early voting. even the election officials would quibble about that characterization as how their voters vote.

>> are more people participating in early voting than in years past? >> yes. there are a couple of reasons for the upward trend. we see a boost in presidential elections. in the terms we see less, but both still on an upwards trajectory. we are looking at 27-28% of those prior to election day. there are going to be some out there where there is a large volume. maybe they are in oregon or washington run in all mail ballot elections. as i mentioned, minnesota now has absentee voting. one of the reasons we are seeing, more permissive early voting laws for the other part

is once you have a state that offers early voting people tend to like voting that method. they like the convenience. they like getting it out of their way when they feel comfortable. once you adopt a more permissive regime more and more people tend to use that early voting as part of their experience. thelly what we have is political parties have invested heavily in early voting activities. on top of those two things we have to get the parties pushing more and more people into voting early. all of those things together have been driving up the number of people voting prior to election day. >> if you go to the website you can see the number of early voters. .ou have over 2 million if that right? >> we are over 2.5 million. i wouldn't be surprised if we are nearing 3 million.

when you go to the website you break down what you're seeing, what trends are breaking along state lines? >> yes. , not just theates raw number of votes but some additional democratic information's or party registration. that information gives us clues as to the state of the race. what is changing and what will change over this week and next week, as states adopt to in person early voting, many people like in-person early voting. the numbers are rocketing up quickly that we have states that have moved early voting. >> let's go through some states. >> north carolina as a state that right now is doing mail only preach the state legislature had changed the voting such that there would be

only one week. in the past we would have that in person voting going on now. now it is going to be next week. democrats have been concerned about the reduction of days. we are going to have 97% of the hours next week that we had two years ago when we had two weeks of early voting. there are more hours on the weekends and evenings. that may make it more convenient. i'm not sure what the effect is going to be. we still have to wait to see what is going to happen with the in person voting. 17,000 and so far. it is a neck and neck race. republicans just past democrats this morning. it. passed it is good news for the republicans. usually they are leading democrats by more than 10 percentage points in party registration. they still have to catch up with where they typically are in a midterm election. >> let's talk about georgia.

you wrote in the huffington post in just one week 72.5% of georgia voters have cast an in-person vote. >> this goes back to the update from yesterday. we are now at 80% of the folks casting early votes. at the end of the day we're at 90% ofoing to be the votes cast early. they're coming in quickly now in georgia. we have over 160,000 people who have voted in georgia. we don't have party registration in georgia. we have a race from the voter registration file. i can make similar calculations where we think the electorate stands. it looks as though the democrats are hitting what they hoped to ine for an electorate

georgia in terms of race. right now, 60% of the people would have voted so far are white. 32% are nonwhite. democrats --s the they just need to have a bear victory. georgia is a state that is very close. it is reflective of what we're seeing in the polls in the state. >> if you want to dig into these numbers more go to the website. thank you for your time. >> thank you for talking. >> washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. back of the national press club, the big 12 conferences holding a form on the state of college athletics back for a discussion now on the question of our student athletes employees?

they should get underway shortly. we are asking you that question essentially. should college athletes be played? with the world series getting under way tonight, if you're not into baseball we hope you're into politics. coverage tonight on c-span gets underway with the massachusetts debate between martha coakley and charlie baker. that is coming up at 7:00. it will be live. the new hampshire senate debate afterwards and the republican challenger. that is at 8:00 eastern. at 9:00 we will have a south

carolina governor's debate. all of that is ahead as we wait for the start of the discussion.

>> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here, the continuation of our discussion organized and sponsored by the big 12 conference. , collegethletes athletics occupies a unique position in our culture. the athletes themselves can me among the biggest stars in sports, think about johnny football. whether stars or not they will likely work hard. a former northwestern quarterback testified before the national labor relations board that he spent 50-60 hours a week during training camp in the summer, and once the season started his commitment to football was 40-50 hours per week. it was hard to be a student in light of his obligations as an athlete. as it happens, a finding of that likely aing is significant step in radically changing how college athletes in

our society are regarded. regional director rules that football players at northwestern are in fact employees of the school. and have the right to form a union. the ruling is being appealed by northwestern. the battle lines have been drawn. what is a student athlete? -- howuld he or us she should he or she be compensated? to try and answer those questions or shed some light on those issues, a distinguished panel. a national columnist for usa ,oday, commentator for abc news and national public radio. elmore is a sportscaster, a former professional basketball player, and a lawyer. he is president of the national basketball retired players association. is the former director

of athletics at arizona state university. in 2005 she was inducted into the american volleyball coaches hall of fame and correct -- and the business of division i college athletics. tom mcmillan is a former rhodes scholar, special basketball player, and member of congress. -- s the founder of the a 38 year veteran of the college sports world, she currently serves as the women's athletic director at the university of texas. she is a former board member of the national association of collegiate marketing administrators. in 2003 she was inducted into that organizations hall of fame. shane center is the director of athletics at the university of kansas. ands a published author researcher and a one-time assistant on coach bill snyder's

staff at kansas state, which he started when he was 23 years old. let's get to the heart of the matter. should student athletes be paid? who wants to take that one? it's an easy one. >> thank you. great to be with you. absolutely not. ways, they arey receiving a lot of benefits now with the college scholarships, which were surveyed a few years ago, $100,000 a year in terms of coaching, exposure, training, all the things and receiving a first class education at some of the finest educations on earth. the idea that athletes need to be paid, i understand the

argument. we're going to go into that over the next hour or so. couple of thoughts. i will throw them out there so we can get rolling on this. are we paying a field hockey player? if not, why not? ix that the title change the playing field of america. the most important law in our country. we have just begun to seeing it work its magic. it is in its infancy. if you have a daughter or a girl next-door, you know how important the law is. wait until these women are running for president and running universities in the 20 30's and onward. we cannot ignore that law must the gateway model for college athletics that leaves the .niversity an academic setting if we go there i think that my overall feeling on this is the

notion of "what you wish for. i'm not sure if we would let what we create if in fact we start paying athletes and have a pro-league.e he -- and we lose the college sports experience, playing or watching, and cheering for these athletes, many who are doing it the right way and are going to graduate and get back to the universities for the next 50-60 years. are there problems in college sports? you bet. paying athletes is not the way to solve them. >> let's go down the line. christine agree with when she speaks of paying athletes. it depends on what you mean by paying. i look at the relationship as more benefactor, beneficiary. when you look at the amounts of dollars that are coming in based

on the exploits of the student athletes, should there be some balance in the equities, absolutely. salary, in the form of should the relationship be in the form of terms, wages, conditions and benefits? which seem to go to the idea of employee as opposed to beneficiary, then i would say no. 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 people are aware there is a lawsuit filed onterday, which is relying the fair labor, their statement -- fair standards labor act and why students under scholarship are not paid minimum wage, which becomes another issue. other students are paid the minimum wage and are able to

gain some kind of paycheck. in the end i do believe our culture in college sports and the things that we have loved about college sports is under who always talk about getting paid. it has filtered down to young people. i can't tell you how many times i have talked to adolescence and athletes and want to become college and professional athletes, this idea of getting paid without understanding the true value of the scholarship and grant. we can talk about any number of things with regard to the benefits student athletes are giving the size the education, reform will be able to balance the equities with some type of payment based on the right of lightness. medical benefits. what number do we put on medical benefits beyond eligibility?

things asout such getting an education if you haven't received a degree in through your eligibility. so many schools are moving in the direction of providing those opportunities beyond exhaustion of your eligibility. finally, i would like people to scholarshiptand, athletes versus non-scholarship students. -- $29,000ing my 29 in debt is what most students ,ould've come out of school that is the average that they are sharing. scholarship athletes are carrying nothing. the real value of the education and the scholarship the student athletes are receiving hasn't been articulated well enough and has allowed those who assault that culture to grab a foothold in the argument. that needs to be changed.

in the end i totally do not agree on the employer, employee relationship and believe benefactor, beneficiary, even though there is a quid pro quo, a symbiotic relationship, it is one we need to look at strongly and put in the context so that we can make a definition as far as what student athletes mean to an institution and vice versa. >> 2-0. >> three. i couldn't agree with both speakers. who made a point thus far. i would always stand in line with what you just heard in the panel before this one. whatever has to be done to financially maintain a sustainable environment of uniquely american culture of attaching amateur sports to college and universities, and all that positive yield over a

century, and then a half-century once you added women through by the civil right movement from the benefit to society is boundless because of the concept of paying for someone's education because they have unique talent and making it an inclusive environment. having been an athlete and a coach, having been a senior official at the university of southern california to work specifically with the olympic boards and then becoming the athletics director at arizona state brown was overseeing the enterprise, getting extreme enclosed football and basketball programs, what has been cultivated over time is a beautiful marriage. with an athletic program that yields incredible citizenry for the united states. in addition to everything that has been said, i don't want to be redundant, but we have not

done a good enough job of expounding on the benefits that exist through this remarkable and unique american system that i believe at all costs should be sustained. you areg athletes creating an unsustainable environment. i don't think there is any doubt about that. you're not going to pay tom and not pay mary. if you think you are you are naïve. you're not going to be able to do it. there is no mary out there that is going to tolerate that. anything that would render this a very delicate situation we are already in financially and make it even a little bit wobbly or while universities try to make sure they invest in these programs and continue to flourish, i would raise my hand and vote against saying pay athletes 10 times over. only gender related issue. it is paying for ballplayer and the basketball player and not

the tennis player. you, this from a number of perspectives. what is your thought? >> they should be paid. let me explain. if you were going to start over and rebuild college sports in america, you may not want to put it at universities. we have this tail wagging the dog. more importantly, if you have a system generating billions of dollars you would certainly address the equities for the players. when land and nine teammates we got $15 a month. so did every other athlete. one introduced legislation in 1991i created a reform bill and provided for a stipend for every athlete. i do think you can create equities across the board for every athlete where they get a

basic stipend that allows them to have a life. there is plenty of money in college sports, if you took the dollars that are out there and redistribute them. the fact of the matter is it is a matter of time before the system blows up. there is so much going on that the system will blow up and will be back here sitting here strip the players receive more? everybody says again education. study, oneto see one strong study that shows me across division i kids leaving 10 years after they have left, what has happened to them. i would like to see that. you tell me they get in education. i would like to see what type of life they are living. i think that would be the ultimate proof. i think they deserve equity, whether you call it pay or not i don't think they need to be employees.

it is a way to bring them up easily the pot. i don't disagree with the yorle goal of allowing financial to expand to the point where the true cost of the sport. i think we've been on record for a long time of saying that's where we need to be. there were votes on this years ago and because of the unwieldiness of our overall governing body we couldn't get to a consensus. and today we're faced with this. but the whole idea of remuneration for someone who is a -- the age group we're talking about, 17 to 23 yodes, who often make a decision to go to an institution for various withins and once we talk to them about the college experience, sports is only a part of it. there's real college athletics experience begins in the admissions office. they've got to meet some

criteria, agree to some benchmarks. frankly, it's a volunteer type of situation. no one is twisting your arm to embark upon what today ncaa and college divisioning athletics requires. it's not easy and it's not for everybody. they come with a gift. they do have to adhere to academic goals and standards and progress toward degree in order to even maintain eligibility. it's not remuneration and it's not pay-for-play. i think the amount delaffers that we generate -- everybody mixes revenue with sort of free cash flow. what we do with revenue goes back to the experiences of these young people. there are some student athletes that leave college with that. if they're on a sclip, they could leave with some debt.

that's why we want delta to be covered by well-resourced institutions if they can. 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 50's, daryl royal when he got his job at the university of texas in 1957 went to the athletics council at texas and says i've got my coaching staff. now i want one more coach. they said why? my id i i want this to be academic, brain coach. his name was lan huet. this was in 1957. daryl's answer to the alumni and donors, he said it does me absolutely no good to bring these guys into this college setting and not have them advance to a degree.

what really matters to me is hat they finish with a degree. how many years later, we're talking with that same question. >> shane? >> i guess i have the benefit of going last and agreing with everyone. at least in part. with each, if not all, with some. i would position myself somewhere between the two ends. one is saying that i -- in reflecting on the last panel who at the very least was very entertaining. i know if we can live up to that. but i think they concluded with making comments about how we seem to be focused on the 1% 06 the student athlete who brings a lot of talent to the table and matriculates to the nba and the nfl, etc. and we sort of ignoring the 99% of the others. now, having said that, i will defer to my elders and say i've

always heard about laundry money and always thought we should have something like that. i'm not sure why it ended back then. but we have young men and women who could use a little more to function around our campuses and in our college towns. having said that, i think we've lost sight of, there's thousands upon thousands of young boys and girls out there don't get to play at the bcs level and would give their left arm to have the privilege of doing what our young people do on our college camp osous us. i'm somewhere between everyone. i believe in the word equities was used previously an i think that was 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, the -- i heard 60, 70, $80,000 by the

time you factor in -- and chris is the expert -- everything from gear to medical, to travel, everything we do to compensate our youth with. but i'm sure we'll flesh all these 30eu7b9s out as we go along. >> 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? we know what they get now. at kansas i'm sure you could tell me what that is. but what should that figure be? what should it include and what should it not include? >> since tom brought up the $15 laundry money. >> did he borrow some from you? >> huh? >> did he borrow some money from you? >> no. it went from everything from buying a record to going on a

date once a month to those of us who didn't have any other resource. one of the things we need to focus on when we talk about full cost of attendance and subsidizing, we have to talk about need. so many times we think across the board, but there are athletes, student athletes who don't have that need, the demonstrated need for those dollars, bit because they come from a family of means or they've had other types of means. but in the end, i think it is -- being a part of the university community, being on a level that makes you feel like you're a 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, you know, 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 can i itemize and categorize each and every one of those things? not necessarily. but it's like something the supreme court said, you know it when you see it. >> right. >> and you understand it. but going back to the situation where you have administrations and other of institutions speak of the instability to -- inabout of putting those resources forward. i think if it's needs-based across the board and all of athletics, i think it is something that is affordable and certainly necessary. but overall -- and i want to get back something that tom said real quickly. when you talk about the athletes and what do they do 10 years from now, i think that's something else we haven't focused on, and that is learning to develop some type of advocacy, whether students are

add va cats for themselves or others being able to get the education that they truly want. if the empatuss is on the student athlete. they have to be an advocate for their education. 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 attend the class or attend the exam without fear of retribution, which i believe unfortunately exist. >> that's a bigger issue. you know, having played that -- >> that, that has to be focused on. witness if you take away that year to be advocates of the -- the student be an advocate for themselves. you have athletes that they're not getting enough time, playing time, i can guarantee they'll be the best advocates they can 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, he's the way we impress people around the world and third-world nations by having a strong plasma movement. very important. it's also important that we have strong title 9. e need to have broad-breadth programs on our campuses. look at the situation, look at what the ncaa takes down in an administrative cogs and look at the conferences, with all due respect. you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. if you had to 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 need 106 when -- the highest paid across the country are football players. i'm all for paying coaches big money. 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 important. that's an ideal way to look at it. >> how realistic is that, though, when there is such competition to win? when ything you do -- lenny and i played at maryland, the coach made $25,000. e worked just as hard. you play. i tell you. you said how realistic is that?

i'll tell you today that there's going to be legislation introduced in the limb duck session to establish a presidential commission to study intercollegiate athletics by jim moran and it's going to model what happened with jerry ford and the olympic nevert the 1970's. 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 interest as a country. i think those are the things we ought to think about. >> you're advocating for olympic sports as a component of the culture to make our society better? >> yes. >> the realty is going to be -- this is a big business, whether we like it or not. you're going to tell me when you have a committee like that and you have politicians on board making decisions, the lobbyists from the network and others aren't going to have an impact, we've got to factor all those in. >> our system of higher

education, universities and -- >> i disagree. >> if you want to have an innovation, jobs for the future, don't screw up your commedges. athletics can be done in a balanced reasonable way. 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 bill of reckoning. i hits this it's time to look at what's important for us as a roy country. that's really the crux. >> i think that discussion is fair, because the model of higher education is challenged as well in this country, so having athletics as part of the fabric of an institution is what we're trying to hang on to here, because, if anything, we want to be an asset. there are 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 learning what it takes of your own personal talent and

fortitude to learn to compete 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. men and our 508 young women athletes, i tell them we have a staff of 350 people here who are talented. we have ph.d.s, sports medicine senators, event experts, people who can run facilities, sustain our budgets. they all choose to work in this environment. why? because they really care about the 500-plus in our care. they are other people's children. they are turned over to us. some on sclip, some on partial. they're on a regimen that is unbelievable. and we have to fund it.

whenever you ask why espn pays 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 the people on the payroll to help those people. if charlie strong is the best football coach in the planet, and we think he is, why would we ire an eak democratic or a chief who couldn't get us through all the things facing student theekts and competition. i believe that that in the ecosystem at our universities, asset, we wantan a to be a support. we can not only sustain our operation but give money back to the institution for am democrat -- academic efforts, which we do, to help the president fund shares and other things.

we should be there to help. but if you -- if we begin to remenu rate the operation, remuneration the participate arningts that breaks that model. right now we're trying to sustain the financial aid model, participation model and be a part of an asset to our institution. >> could i clirefy a question you asked earlier? >> yes. >> this had been the case in university of southern california and university of arizona. they described a lot of it, about the official money where it's currently calculated. it encompasses the -- the estimations are different on campus, but things like laundry and food and the babblet for a -- ability for a young person to travel home, or there's just a built-in life list, around that

gap of the current full sclip to what they would estimate at u.s.c. to be full cost of attendance is significantly different than in tempe, because of cost of livinging in los angeles is so much more expensive. there's questions about how to funnel what is needed to a higher-neat 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 the -- a couple of things. one of the primary being coaching salaries. it sends off an alarm clock everywhere. and i understand that. and i understand it forcing

questions. in if you did a deeper dive researching exactly what goes on on a college campus and the commitment to academic well-being and the fact that we are graduating football and basketball players in particular well over 70%, i don't think the rate was 80 pshes when you were playing. i'm being respectful, but it's absolutely marvelous. if you follow the track for 10 years, and i need to be careful, because i can't cite the source of the stoirksd my memory's 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 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 and educational -- and that undergraduate degree. at least many are getting masters degrees while still playings. it's all happening. we just have to focus on an issue that's become larger than life so the guts of the dole is overlooked and the guts of the deal is pretty special. >> the issue you're talking about is an important point, and comes to the heart of my industry, the mainstream sports media, dear, dear friends of mine, people i went to college with, people i adore but you hear them all, football, basketball, they don't even bother that pacific northwesty word "men." we should be able to say men's basketball and women's basketball. i think most of us probably do.

it's as if there are two sports, to your point about where's the deeper dive. they are two sports, there's soluble and men's basketball. it is clouded -- the -- our vision -- it has clouded our vision and -- >> money has a way of doing that. >> it does. but also a lack of -- i'll be critical of our colleagues, jeremy. i think 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 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'll just kind of throw this out -- 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, money and all that. i'm a capitalist. we all are. i get, i absolutely get it. but i wonder when we're going to start hearing the voice of the mom and dad paying full freight, who by the way, fees go to help pay for athletics. when they hear there's more and more for shects -- athletics, i'm not looking for moms and dads to march on washington, d.c. and have some kind of a rhode island of the. we know for a fact that when you talk to fans, they don't want to see athletes being paid. i know 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 say no to paying athletes and no to the likeness issue and, again, there's a lot there. we could be here 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 -- but stepping back and of all the people saying, i am sick of this, enough is enough, or i'm not going to buy season tickets or i'll buy season tickets to softball. i think journalistically, one of the main things we have to do is focus on these issues because there is a whole other side of this story that by and large is not being heard because of my wonderful friends in the mainstream sports media who beat the drum on the two revenue sports to the extent of avoiding everything else. >> let me say one thing before i give you an opportunity to speak. i think to play devil's advocate, you can be clearly in line with what you're thinking and recognize that there are certain things that are just untenable. wasn't -- because of his

likeness. when did he graduate? >> co-plaintiff. >> co-plaintiff. excuse me. pi misspoke. that can't be right. something like that needs to be recognized, that, you know, almost 60 years later, likeness of an athlete is still controlled by the university. you know, that he played for. i think you can be on board with the larger thought but kind of understand that some things in the engine room, some nuts and bolts need to be changed. >> 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 and probably bigger than what we want it to be. james mitchell one of our greatest authors in the last century wrote a book that's decades old but speaks to so much of what we're talking about.

i do believe it's going toe 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 we're here today. having said that, i don't want to lose sight of something lynn said earlier, talking about need-based. i'm going to reflect back to when i was a football coach at the university of wyoming in 1997 making a salary much less than what people do today in this business, i remember disstickly at that time, full ride sclip existed as they do ride. what a full ride encompasses is taking johnny or suzy from an inner city or a rule farm and putting them in your -- rural farm and putting them in your college town and giving them -- they go to school like they did in high school and they get their books and their food and they are remenu rated for the things that you have before

college. in light of that, i have this distinth memory, pulling up the football practice in a 10 -year-old used cars and having a boy of a family of means pull up in a new s.u.v. getting a call that someone else had nothe eaten for three days. that never happened when school was in session but based on the rules in existence at that time, you couldn't give them food or money for food during breaks at that time. i want to give real-world samples that we try to paint this with a broad brush stroke. we're talking about young men and women who have different stories. i believe it's going to end up in -- >> isn't it difficult to administer 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 blackmon talked earlier about when they were talking about the drug issues, drug use in olympic sports and he used the term, you know, we were the fox guarding the hen house and they created usada, i think there needs to be an outside force with some teeth in it, so if that happens with a government-type agency, that's where we need to start on that. some of these rules on how we feed them, when we feed them, etc., those are so easy to fix, but what we can't just fix is integrity, lack of ethics and people who just want to play by a different rulebook. that's hurting college athletics and the nationwide perception of why college sports is good, why

it matters, why there are fwoasts 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 parnte at your alma emptier, all the alma matters, where something is going on where an admission slot is created for something that's not consistent with the university's values. there should be benchmarks to stay at the different universities. >> but is that realistic? is that ever going to happen as long as there's the need to win and the best player doesn't qualify? >> yes, indeed. if, in fact, as tom mentioned, there is a collective in the national interest of politicians, those who have the power to grand things like an anti-trust exemption on a

limited basis, to allow a body like the ncaa, and i'm not saying this particular make-up but at some point, a essential body or authority that's going to be able to impose a lot of the things without having to worry about having some kind of anti-truss bloigs against them. that's what it is. -- litigation against them. when you had the outlaws against you in the old days, youed in to hire a sheriff. i agree with tom, the point i was making is let's get rid of the tail wagging the dog mentality, which is what we have in college sports right now where university admission is secretary air to the mission of athletics. we have to go back to that but the only way you'll go back to it, once again, is if there is as i mentioned before, some

central body strong enough to be able to enforce 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 anti-trust violation, but nevertheless, because of the unique position, as tom mentioned, that college sports holds in our national interest, that somebody has to be able to do it. based on a rule of reason which is part of an antitrust examination, that would be the reason why you provide that limited exemption. an exemption can lift the whole range of things that the nraa or whatever body it is has to accomplish or 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, we're back in the same position, or you change the leadership.

something strong like that has to be done. i think the congressional oversight reviews is the first step towards that. >> tom. 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 the participants, including our universities. if you look back in the 1970's, i was on the 1972 olympic team. we had a really tough olympics. other members of congress put in bills saying we need to congressional commission to look at this. everybody's fighting. nobody's in control. we formed a presidential commission made up of laypeople and minutes optical congress. they passed a bill. it became the amateur chorts aspect. it gave the olympic committee the authority to finally be in charge. what has happened in college forces that nobody is in charge? there's a lot of people in charge but nobody is really in charge. 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 be courts and everything else. and we're heading towards this chaos, which i think ultimately we will ask us how do we fix it and i think that's sooner rather than later. >> why isn't the ncaa in charge? >> first of all, they don't control football. you have you will the conferences that as mark emmeret said in the senate commerce committee, he said, i'm not really fully in charge here. he even admitted he has limits on his power. i fully recognize that. quite frankly, i'm looking for a benevolent dictator in college sports because to take all the good and make it work, for all the things that we like about college sports, and that's -- 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. so -- >> i was going to ask, you mentioned it before, we may be headed towards a day of reckoning. all of you folks, do you think 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 president. the presidential commission. ultimately there's got to be congressional involvement. with the supreme court -- i imagine this stuff could go all the way to the supreme court. the supreme court, who knows? i also say that's not a good thing either. having all this litigation in the public eye is not good for college sports. i think that it really tarnishes all the good work that everybody in this room's doing. and i see more and more this coming. like lenny pointed out. that really bothers me. and so we need to get -- we need to get the cowboys back in the barn here and run -- get the cows back in the barn here and run it.

>> you have to give the central authority a shield from the chinks in the armor, the death by 1,000 cuts, if you will, and allow the right leadership to do exactly what he said, the benevolent dictator to be able to enforce the rules. >> so draw up the perfect situation, just spitball it right here, what is it, exactly? >> once again, make impervious to the litigation that's 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 there's no conflict of interest, if you will, as you ncaa, some re the 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

at shield conditioned upon achieving those lists of reforms. those reforms have to go to the benefit of student athletes. if it goes to the benefit of the student athlete, then you put the dynamic back in whack again where there's no 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. 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 vs. the ncaa, you know, that's when it started to unravel. when the ncaa lost its central authority. and people also recognize there

is a weakness there that we can attack for our own interests. i think that's where the problem is. if you read justice white's dissent, it says 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. whether you're coaching coaches' salaries, whether you're eliminating competition that's affecting adversely the ability of student athletes to study, to do things. i mean, in football, tuesday, wednesday, thursday games, that's kind of silly. 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 got to be able to balance that because it is a big business. we can't -- 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 think, again, the student athlete benefit, which is all of our focus, it's hard 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 ey served enough, are they remune rated enough, they have 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'll 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. i think we would lose it in spayeds.

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

y twitter, by social media, by mainstream media to the point where the apologies from rorge ergo del, the changes, the immediate suspension of a man who had already been suspended -- wait until he gets reinstated by the union, that's another issue, ray rice. things have really changed. we really saw something remarkable that week, september 8 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 being on a -- >> you keep taking my job. >> sorry. i'm curious, if something like that what happened, that seminole moment, september 8, with that ray rice video, if, you know, if fans get disgusted, jameis winston saying, as i alluded to, florida state, six, seven things he's done, it's

appalling. >> let's switch hats here for a second and say, as not only someone who's 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, you know, 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 saying enough is enough? will those fans even be listed 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, we should have our minds maybe open to anything because i never would have envisioned what happened with the nfl, september 8, 9, 10, 11. that's all i'm saying. >> the nfl situation was such that everything moved so quickly. 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. >> well, they have. you know, we're seeing that. it didn't come out as quickly enough. but in the end, christina, i agree with you. there had to be some kind of ground swell of disgust, to put it in the terms that you did, that, you know, the thing that everyone loves, they go saturday or during the week and in basketball, in either gender's basketball, all the 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 there's been so much misinformation, so much per version and disfiguring of the -- perversion and disfiguring of the culture that people think this is the way it's supposed to be, this is the way it's supposed to operate instead of recognizing, once again, 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 opportunities to develop into leaders that ultimately will have impact on us as a nation. and not just what the -- we watch on tv. i don't think people see it enough. >> you know, i wish self-reform will work. having been at this a long time, because i think it will be better. university of maryland board of regents, i'm on the board. we passed something in committee, we won't give a coach an athletic bonus unless he hits the minimum a.p.r. that season. wow. you know there's not a school in the country that does that, not a program across the country. it means a coach can't flunk his team out and still get hundreds of dollars if not millions of dollars of bonuses. and that was hard. that's hard. why hasn't that been adopted across the country? i see amy out there.

that -- they have been working on it for years. years ago in the 1990's there were no coaches making a million. today there are hundreds of coaches making $1 million. are we going to be back here 20 years? this is what i'm concerned about. i just wish this thing could clean itself out but it's had plenty of opportunities and it hasn't happened. to your point, all these external forces will make it more likely we'll have a day of reckoning. >> i do think, though, that coaches have to care based on the standards and academic standards that are ratcheting up and the fact because of a.p.r. and because of g.s.r., if you aren't discerning and recruiting, if you don't get a young lady or man who comes to fit your campus and truly want to be a student in addition to participating, you -- you're not in a situation where you can just run them off and survive. you go below the a.p.r., we saw

our national championship basketball team from last year miss the tournament for a year. >> well, chris, without enforcement, pure and swift and reasonable enforcement, all that does is promote renegades out there and you got academic fraud. we only see the tip of the iceberg, i'm sure. i do a lot of games and i've been doing this thing over 25 years and -- in college basketball. you can talk to athletes. you can recognize, you know, who's on the ball, who's not. who can do college work or who's capable of doing it and who's not. and what happens is -- and i agree with you that coaches have to care -- but unless they're given the incentive to care even more, which means, as tom, you talking about tying someone's bonus to a.p.r., what happened to tying someone's bonus to the number of kids who graduate and meaningful -- with meaningful majors and some of the other things? you know, all that does in many instances a lot of renegades get away with stuff. i think that 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 a disincentive to do some of those things that will get them around the a.p.r. and the g.s.r. consideration. >> i would say today, just given the way universities operate, it's difficult to fraud the academic system. what's incentivizing people to go to particular campuses and what -- yeah -- and what's keeping them there? and coaches have bosses too. you've got to hire a coach that fits your campus, that fits the profile of your campus and what the alumni expect athletics to be on your campus? again, i hate to use texas analogies. there's no other high profile job at u.t. than the coach. there are 10 young men no longer in uniform.

now, our fans could be, you know, put off by that but he had five basic rules to follow and if you can't follow those five rules you can't play for texas. our fans, i think, right now admire what he's done. he cares about the character of these young people. he said it's a privilege to play here. as long as you follow these rules, you can represent our institution. those young men will be better. 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 their skills, they'll still be a good citizen and a heck of a player in the nfl. >> ok, here's the -- you got to continue to stand by that. there are some universities that won't stand by it, you know, the value, 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 exactly right. >> i believe that's where texas is and we got a men's a.d. who is 6'4" and can post you guys up too.

[laughter] >> ok. >> because in the end, look, this is -- these are games which are about winning. and i think unfortunately what we've seen historically that winning component of this is much more important or certainly equally as important as the idea that you're shaping an individual and helping contribute to society. and that's the unfortunate part of it. that's the imbalance, i think. i mean, when do we -- what's the break -- i think the point is to your point, what's the breaking point to college athletics? when do we get to the point of such outrage enough is enough? is it possible -- could you imagine getting there? yeah, go ahead. >> that's pretty depressing but a lot of this is. at the risk of sounding like the eternal optimist, i kind of look at the issues facing us in our industry right now and put alongside the issues that are in front of congress and here in washington, d.c. every day. it seems like we reached a point where an impasse on

almost all social issues. we're the greatest country that's ever been with some of the greatest minds that 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 the last few decades in college athletics. i think back to a time i was watching "60 minutes" with my dad back in the 1970's and there was an expose on athletics and johnny can't read and this and that. that is when you had to enroll six hours a semester and so on and so forth. right now we have a.p.r., we have g.s.r. we have the 20-hour rule which we could spend the next three days talking about as well. when i entered in the coaching business years ago it was not typical to have a practice of three hours and 40 minutes. that rarely happens today. these students have so much academic support on most of our campuses. there are a lot of good things going on. and my point is this -- we've

addressed a lot of those issues and so this is now the issue of our time. and, you know, it's up to us. this is the issue of our generation. and we need help, tom. we need help from a lot of different factions to get this solved. and, again, you have to be an optimist to be in education. i believe that we will find this answer and we will solve this problem. it's daunting right now, but discussions like this are the beginning of where we will end up. and there is a right answer out there that we'll get to. >> it's intriguing to think entity moving into become the power base. whether it's a commissioner or whatever the model looks like, because i never really thought -- gave that a lot of thought but i posted this classroom of ph.d. and master students all the time as we go through the business of division i college

athletics, where does the power lie? who's got the power? who's got the power? who's got the power? so at one point several decades go in order to wrangle the competing institutions, they established a central governing body and created sort of a czar, an executive director who failed miss rabblely and ousted shortly because -- miserabley and ousted shortly because people thought they were being selectively enforced as opposed to a general nonpartisan entity hat works for the welfare on theme -- student athlete, citizenry, benefit and graduation and all those kinds of things where you have that is the sole theme of whatever this third-party entity could be to manage the enforcement process and anything else, for that matter, because the rules are made and passed and fail and passed so many times

because of student athlete well-being, yes, but also because of competitive interests. and when you look at that in the bigger picture, to manage something as critical as enforcement and feel confident at arizona state or u.s.c. or the university of texas, university of kansas or northwestern or all of these schools, maryland, the schools that we're talking about, you just want to feel confident that what's being enforced in baltimore is also being enforced in spokane. and game on. if those are the rules, play by the rules and enforce the rules in a nonpartisan capacity and create the rules, not based on the competitive nature of you getting an edge, n.l.a., and i'm not getting the same benefit because i'm in manhattan, kansas, and let's not do that. unfortunately, trying to butt heads with unlike institutions, but if you went to a fair or nonpartisan entity that was managing enforcement for the

ncaa that members could actually trust, then i believe the members would be onboard. they just want to know what's happening on one side of the country is the same thing that's happening with diligence on the other side of the country. and equitabley applied. i think -- equitably applied. and the whole raising the issue of third-party enforcement, chris, i think you brought up the enforcement thing, leads down a path of potential health but also maybe being able to answer the question of where's the power lie, because it's too hazy. it's just too hazy. >> is oversight of that -- at that level, you know, that type of scrutiny, is that really possible? do you think it could be effective? because you'd really need to watch so carefully and so closely. >> you got a membership whether it was -- whether it's within the ncaa right now or a third party that we're talking about

in this panel discussion, you have a membership that's hungry for fairness and application. you have a membership that's starving for fairness in application. they're ready from one school to the other to know that what goes on in one city and one college town is going on in another college town. and they're anxious for that to happen, so i actually think that membership, given the right setup, would embrace the concept of nonpartisan, fair enforcement body that conducted business on theme for the benefit of student athletes' health, well-being and graduation. >> i was just going to say to support that position, there's so much with regard to self-reporting that's out there. >> that's right. >> and so institutions, if the administration sees that the athletic department has done something, you know, they're going to self-report. now it's up to this third party to go in and really find out exactly what's going on, because there's no -- there's

no third party. there's no security that's going to be able to find every single infraction. they're not going to be able to snoop through every division i through iii university and find out. so it has to be motivated by the idea of doing the right thing instead of trying to do things right, per se. but once it happens, you know, right now without subpoena power and without some of the other powers that are going to be able to dig deeper through that superficial layer of evidence and get to the truth, you're not going to be able to find anything and that's the biggest problem. i think a third party can certainly handle that. >> so everybody was worried about what was autonomy going to be mean for these five conferences. what we want is still the big ten. we want to be able to do as much as our resource also reasonably allow us to do for student athlete experience and enhancement, period, and keep the educational model, too. we want to keep the big ten

under our governing body. it's called the ncaa today. i want to be able to play texas state in softball and softball if it so choses and that's what made our ncaa basketball tournament so appealing that princeton might beat georgeton. but the thing that we're concerned about is how we manage our enforcement. you know, aside from using our resources to expand financial aid for student athletes and services, really, hashoring in the gut of all -- harboring in the gut of all of this is how we enforce this compliance issue. we don't have the answers yet but we better get there sortly before january. >> we are quickly closing in on the end of the discussion here, so what i'm going to do is ask you each to close by giving me your thoughts on the following question. not what would you like to see happen, but where are we heading in terms of the

situation that we've been discussing, the student athlete compensation? what's the trajectory taking us towards? i will start on the far end. >> i want to start by saying somewhere in the middle. maybe that's an easy place to be. tom started by talking about if we were to break the whole model apart and start over we wouldn't be where we are today. well, we've evolved to this point over 100 years and there's a lot of reasons for that and we can't unwind that as quickly as we'd like to. but i do believe using the term that was used earlier, there will be equities that will be distributed about. i don't think the term employee tastes right in the world of amateurism and college athletics. i would close my part by saying, regardless of what we all do and wherever we all get in this, and i am an optimist, no one will stop johnny and suzy from playing basketball and swimming and diving and

sprinting and playing tennis, whatever else they do. i believe in the pure essence of sport in america and we're not going to keep our young boys and girls and young men and women from being the best they can be. >> i just look at this panel and i think about the -- how college athletics has inspired and assisted every one of us. i believe that the people you see on this panel are the products are a very good environment. we need to hold on to the good notions in that environment. we need to improve it, and we need to deal with it in a modern business sense. and i believe that there's enough intellectual firepower on our campuses and leadership that we can do it with some assistance from greater minds as well. >> thank you. change is coming, you can count on that. just give you one point. clay kristenson says 50% of our

colleges, universities won't be here in 15 years from now. so what are we going to do? what we need is someone in charge of college sports that's going to be working in our true national interest, promoting the things that are truly important to america -- competition, gender equity, academics, minor sports and most of all being in sync with our institutions of higher learning which are the most important assets in this country today. >> lisa. >> we'll be in a healthier place. the hard questions we're dealing with right now and if the catalyst of those questions are heightened -- television revenues and multimillion-dollar coaching contracts, so be it. it may be an uncomfortable surf for a while to ride, but i think ultimately the tenants of he american model of athletics

will survive and be stronger. i don't exactly know how we'll come to that point but i think what's happening right now is college for a healthier environment and i think there are good questions being asked right now. >> len. >> well, let me throw a dose of pessimism in. unfortunately i see us without having some of the solutions that we talked about, stronger independent body that's impervious to the death by 1,000 cuts of litigation, etc., without the antitrust kind of shield that we'll have, that we certainly should have. i see kind of a bifurcated situation where there are going to be institutions in conferences that will be driven by the dollars. what do you think conference realignment was all about? right now there's nothing to realign. down the road there might be some without this kind of help i'm talking about and my fear it's going to be a bifurcated system where you're going to have certain conferences and certain universities that are

going to go for the dollars and now we're going to have a total blurring of the professional versus the collegiate model in sports. and we talk about student athletes as employees, i mean, we're going to go right up against that as close as we possibly can with payments and things of that nature without the enforcement that's necessary to kind of curtail that. we are going to ultimately have people paid. some people have been speaking about having, you know, agents involved now in recruitment, having them involved in negotiating, certain conditions and terms and wages for student athletes. you know, we got this jeffrey kessler case. i hate to give it that name because he's the attorney. he's not the plaintiff. but nevertheless is recognized by that, that wants to create the so-called free market that's going to benefit institutions as to how they deal with student athletes. but the funny part of it is,

there's not one institution that's one of his plaintiffs. i don't know how you can speak to good intentions for them. all of that combined without the protections that we necessarily need so we can gather and do the right thing instead of just trying to do things right, you know, we're going to have that bifurcated system where college sports in a major sense are going to be indistinguishable from the professional model. that's going to turn a lot of people off. and maybe that sort of ground swell ultimately comes but by the time it's too late. >> a couple of thoughts, a couple thoughts. where are the presidents of the universities? i mentioned florida state. the president, acting president in that case, the leadership of that university in charge of that university, what might be happening different there now? i am picking florida state. it's in the news. we know there are many others.