d.u.i. and is suspended. are there any specific rules about punishing olympians charged with a crime? do you see a culture shift in it comess world when to violent behavior against athletes? lastt me answer your question first. i do see a culture shift. reason itr whatever doesn't seem acceptable just to say to wait and see what happens the trial. there seems to be more and more takeure on sports to action when an athlete is charged with a behavior as to when an athlete is found to have committed the behavior. iu probably know better than do what's driving that. but i know that a lot of our national governing bodies are feeling the pressure because in all truth so many of them aren't meaningful do investigations when an allegation of miss conduct is that's one of the reasons the safe sport

initiative is so important. it only covers one small slice of abuse, it covers ofeally important part abuse, one that needs to an dressed and we do need to bring to bear.urce on the hope solo situation and the michael phelps situation, you know, both of those cases ie pending and it would be think inappropriate for us to comment on what may have happened or what should happen we have a version of the facts that either has been party ord by a third that all of the parties have acknowledged. expect future repper kegses the the phelps? clauses haveal been part of those contracts for a long type.

we have a code of conduct that we ask each much our athlete to sign and they do sign. the truth is that if you look at of london, they were almost without exception, incident, buty almost would you exception the american athletes comported way that made us all proud to be americans. so one of the things we're trying to do is focus the athlete's attention on it in opposed to after the fact. so we ask each of our athlete to participate in what we call an ambassadors program we gather them together for half a day with air their team, we have famous athletes come in and explain what a great opportunity this is for them to be an to help sell themselves and importantly how world tos in today's screw up and impair your long-term value. honestly believe that that program which is operated out of is invaluable in making

our athletes think about consequences in advance. really haven't had any significant issues in the last few games, and knock on wood i we can keep doing that. how often does your law background come into play when promoting the olympic games or of the u.s. olympic committee? >> i have three kids, all of whom are either just out of clem or in college. talk about law school what i tell them is that i think law school is youendous, it teaches critical thinking skills that are unbelievably valuable to you i whyhout your life, and those, i don't know if you call them skills, but i use that way thinking in everything that i do. being a lawyer is different question than being able to take advantage of the gray training that you get in law school. grateful for that training, and i do use it all the time.

>> are the olympics now drug-free? and does the united states do a better job of testing and oforcing that and the rest the world? >> i think our athletes get tested more, and more stringently than any other the world or certainly among the top 1% of athletes in the world. we externalized our direct testing. created around the year 2000. the usoc used to do it own drug testing, and adjudication, and what we realized is that we were fox guarding the then house. our job is to win medals and if also responsible for catching and adjudicating the cases against the dopers, interest.conflict of so we move it outside of our $200 million budget, more than every year of that goes to support the united states anti-doping agency. we're proud of the fact that we one of the strongest

anti-doping regimes in the world. but the sport is not drug-free by any means at all. advantagers have an because they're thinking of new ways to cheat before we can think of new ways to test them cheating. so we have to continue continue vest and continue to do research, and it's very, very to us in the context where we're not just about the outcome, we're not just about we have ad losing, value system that under lies everything that we try to sell sponsors, our broadcast partner, our donors, and if we it willvest in that brand humid impact on our long-term. >> the 2022 world cup is being hottest reasonhe ons on earth, qatar, the middle east. causing concern over the health andoth the athletes construction workers building venues alike. how do you foresee global events like the olympics being affected by global climate change and conditions?her

>> i think it's fantastic that we have a number of countries like qatar who are rising up and to invest their substantial resources in sport. i think that's a wonderful thing. i think we have to rely on the i.o.c. and the international federations to make sure that those investments are appropriate. and hopefully through the oversight of the i.o.c. and the fedderses when competitions are held in places it won't be at the expense of our athletes, because critically important. so we're very, very supportive of the, i guess the arrival at qatar.ty of places like but we are looking to the i.o.c. and the international federations to make sure that those competitions are held under conditions and circumstances that promote opposed to the opposite.

>> a couple of marketing questions. how has new media affected the marketing of the olympic movement? >> the audience that people are to connect with is not people my age. forink the average viewer the sochi olympics was 50 years plus, average age. question for nbc and others is how do we make the olympics relevant to those younger audiences, and the media.is digital it's social media. so we've made an investment, engaged with face become and twitter. in it.eve i am not on face become, i don't do twitter. communications person doesn't let me, for very good reasons. be very relevant in that space, and i think i

priority for nbc, and coming out of the vancouver they did some research and what they that people watching on digital media actually itanced their viewership, increased their numbers on television, it didn't hurt them. nbc is all in in this proposition too. question. the olympics have traditionally been a television only event. streaming on the internet is accelerating. what will be the media mix in future? >> i think it's going to be incumbent on us and incumbent on have the widest possible mix. at the end of the day different accessing through different platforms. what nbc wants, what any rights abilityould want is the to exploit their rights across all platforms. so personally i'm going to continue to watch on television

when i'm not on the games. threeguarantee you my children will not. i think we have to make sure we have the widest possible access all platforms. >> and how do you think social media engagement will trif the country's bid for hosting a olympics? >> i think one of the most important factors that we look as we select a city is what kind of support does the bid have in their cities. and if they want the support of young people, they're not going in theble to get it traditional ways, they're not going to be able to get it through newspapers and television as much. a lot of it will be driven by social media. so all four of our big cities are thinking through what is our social media plan going to be, media plan had have a great deal to do with their ability to demonstrate to their city really wants to host the games in the united states. to have anng extremely important impact on

our assessment of what kind of does each oft these cities have. >> when you walk into your office at the usoc, what is usually your main goal for the day? funny, that's changed since i first started in 1999. in 1999lly started work three days after the salt lake bid scandal erupted. so i got to work on that commission with senator mitchell and don fear. it was a lot of crisis management. when i started in 2010, it was all about vancouver two weeks.st i started about a week before the vancouver games. glorioussly had a success there. but when i got back we were facing some really serious issues with the i.o.c. and we began our revenue sharing we again trying to rebuild those international

relationships. now, it feels like we're on a fairly stable course, we're directionthe right and we have the opportunity to morere opportunistic and strategic, as opposed to trying to put our finker in the dike, trying to figure out how can we create more resources to support our athletes. are able to support about one half of the national team athletes in the united states. you take our 48 national governing body, there are young and women who were good enough to be on their sports national team who are not receiving support from us. and the athletes who get support than $2,000 ass month from us on average. so it's really not even enough on.ive so our job now is to figure out how can we be creative and enhancing the resources that we can make available to our athlete so we can fund all of national team members.

>> we're leading up to the of this, i must say, very informative q and a session, preceded by your remarks. so a general question, what are the major priorities for the committee through 2020 and how is the organization them?ng >> so i would say we have a of overriding priorities. one is continue to build on our major gift program. we started a new foundation last year, it was called the united olympic and paralympic foundation. a yearaising $20 million now in gross major gifts. plusould be at $50 million at some point in the future. we have to continue building that out. a priority.learly hostng a way that we can the olympic games on u.s. soil is a priority. we're not going to do it if it economic sense, but we're going to work really really hard to find a way that

sense. make economic safe sport is a priority for us. we've got to get this done, we've got to raise this money, we've got to launch this pilot program. andathlete careers education, transition of their a fourthis i would say priority for us. so many of our athletes leave system in their my 20's and late 20's because they want to get going with the rest of their they're not actively engaged in considering what am i going to do after i compete. more meaningful programmings for them where they're looking at education and career decisions in their teens and 20's while they're still competing so they can compete with the confidence that they have, a much better sense than do now about what they're going to be doing with the rest of their lives, i think it would immensely. >> thank you so much. time. almost out of before asking the last question

we have a couple housekeeping matters to take care of. like to remind you about an upcoming luncheon on november 7, with robert mcdonald, the secretary of veterans affairs. next, i'd like to present our traditional national press club mug to our guest, and it is, as laborioned to the secretary yesterday, who is rumored to be maybe moving confirmed,though not but this is light enough that you can easily pack it in your bag or travel with it around the world. name of the national press club. >> thank you very much. [applause] last question, what is your favorite olympic sport, and why? >> i have so many. let me tell you about some great olympic moments. one of my favorite moments, my

with mes a little angry at times when i say this, but when derek remonths father came the track, i think during the barcelona games, he pulled a about 100-yard to go and he fell down and his dad came out of the stand and helped line.ross the finish it's moments like that that make you realize it's not the it's the trying, that really matters. so you think about that, you think about lake placid in 1980 and those young men that won underold medal unbelievable circumstances. you look at the great performances over time much our like carl lewis, there are so many, many things that to be so grateful for having what i think is the best job in the united states of america. i get to see these young men and women almost every day, i get to do what they do, they're very humble. they're not in it for anything be thehan a desire to best that they can be.

so a lot of those moments are me just every day on the job. i can't thank you all enough for here, it was a real pleasure. thank you. [applause] for comingu all today. i'd also like to thank national club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for helping to today's and facilitate event. finally here's a final remind they're you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you'd like a copy much today's program, please check our website at press.org. thank you all, thank you very much. adjourned.

>> on the next "washington journal," the former chief of terrencecapitol police gaynor on the shooting at the capital. is ahow health care campaign issue. "washington journal" is live at .:00 a.m. ear on c-span >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. us on twitter, and like us on facebook. to get debate schedules, video of key moments, debate previews from our politics team, over 100 bringing you senate, house and governor debates. and you can instantly share your candidateso what the are saying. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and us on by following

twitter. and liking us on facebook. the big 12 from conference forum held on tuesday. c.e.o.ympic committee scott blackmun is joined by journalists, college administrators and athletic directors for a discussion about money in college sports and how that money is spent. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i'm jimmy robert, thank you for joining us here in wowed, online well. c-span as the numbers in college sports are staggering. easily be something we're talking in terms of points gained, or any

one of a number of things that are measured quantitatively. attendance, participation. and money. therding to file wtion department of education, in 2011 the most recent year for which available, are college sports combined to generate more than $12.6 billion. year the university of texas alone took in more than $165 million. espn is paying in excess of $600 million a year to televise new college football playoff system, over the next 0 years. the price tag -- 10 years. the price tag for the ncaa basketball tournament, march and cbs paye warner $10.8 billion for a 14-year deal. said, athletic departments at many schools and in fact most schools operate in the red. and the star player on the thepionship team that won men's basketball tournament last year said that some night he

bed hungry. so where does the money go? seem to be more of it than there ever has been before. everyone degrees that its distribution has been wise or equitable. parseith us today to help the issues are a handful of men with significant knowledge and regarding the most visible sports in our culture, and how they are run. berkowitz is a sports project reporter information u.s.a. today specializing in andrprise stories investigations. he is also dedicated a considerable amount of time to compiling the newspapers college sports compensation and finance base. patrick sandusky, the chief communications and public affairs officer for the united states olympic committee, he is a former college athlete, an offensive lineman at northern illinois. chris del conte is the director

of athletics at tcu, since 2009.r of steve patterson is the men's athletic director at the university of texas, he was the same position at arizona state and spent more than two decade in professional among other roles he was general manager of both the houston rockets and portland trailblazers of the nba. senior write for sports illustrated, he preafl worked for the "new york times" where for ark was nominated pulitzer prize. big 12 commissioner bob bolsby plannedded to be with us today, but he's home recuperating from surgery so we the best.sh him all opinions ebbs pressed here today are those of the panelists and do not represent the organizations with which they are associated. ofarly this is a time

tremendous upheaval in sports. a regional director of the ruledal labor rests board this year that northwestern's football players should be allowed to form a union. ncaa was found in august to be in violation of antitrust law by the formerught player.ketball that was only a day after the conferencesg five broke away from the rest of the ncaa. the common neil in all of these items is -- the common theme in all of these money. i want to start with the two men on the panel charged with the overseeingity of programs at universities. how does the commerce of college werts now change, why don't start with you, steve. >> i don't know that it really theged all that much over years. for a long time schools have competed. it's a part of the american culture.

tore have been movements regulate that, going back more than 100 years. greaterwhat we see are student services, greater facilities, bigger staffs than in the past. the reality is we want to provide the best student the bestwe can to have outcomes for our student athlete that we possibly can and that takes a lot of resources. so to generate those resources you have to have media contracts it and have to celtic raise a lot of money and sell a lot of merchandise and all the other things that provide those revenues to provide those services. >> chris? steveoncur with what said. you look at it from the evolution of college athletics, time of the ncaa men'sformed in 1927 was athletics. it's created parity in football. you think about the popularity today, used to have unlimited scholarships back in to day, and it went to 110,

95 and today it's 85. tcu, baylor, nontraditional powers have relevant. and the popularity of college athletics and in football in particular is second to none. yet we are running a business on peoples passion. and says i have two revenue streams, i must produce or support 20 sports, based on the student body population. the evolution has changed, commerce has changed doctorsity cloudy. clean athletics has we --d and the idea that our are we providing for student athletes, it's beyond the handshake. it's not a five-year decision, decision.year the demands of winning, the demands of providing ton for

ever greater.re so it's always evolving. guess what i really meant, though, was given what's happened within the last years specifically within the last few months, the prospect of foresee business being done any differently given o'ban nondecision, a possibility that your model may change? >> different question. yeah. collegeg you know about athletics is it's ever changing. no doubt about it. believe that a student athlete should receive full cost do.ttendance, absolutely, i when you start to think about the ramificationings of the o'bannoncase, that will put tremendous pressure on college because forartments us at tcu, getting to the big 12 our largestat, but doan more has been the institution. found money actually

goes back to the university to thatn our burden on institution, and programs are talking about becoming self it sayent, i look at and we're part and parcel of an institution. hadcu seven closer ago we 7,000 applicants for 1600 spots. the success of our athletic and the rise of tcu going to the rose bowl, we're those same0,000 for 1600 spots. and we're only talking about women's and men's basketball and football. how does that affect title 9. you can see we're going to provide opportunities for two sports, hell has no fear like a woman scorned. i have two daughters, pay the baby, so how do you do that. we have to realize that this is not free for everybody and we're prepared to do that. >> steve, you have spent a

of timeable amount covering college sports, and the numbers. cost ofou see the attendance changing and affecting the way colleges and athleticies in their departments do business? >> it's going to be an interesting thing for how this,s manage to do whether or not they're going to discontinuing the efforts to raise more money through commercial enterprises or whether or not this is going to thing that of perhaps better justifies institutional involvement in supporting college athletics programs. been toward making athletic programs self sufficient. it seems to me that this is almost created a itpetual motion machine, resulted in increased pressure to increase revenue. turn result in the situation that we have so much thenue being generated that general public, people who are

lawyers, judges, who are looking at this and going like wow, so so much money being generated here that something more needs to be done for the athlete. where the athletes are entitled to compensation for the way they are participating in the generation of that money. so it creates interesting questions as to how colleges want to deal with this and whether or not the impact will be to continue to put a further perpetuate this. >> patrick, chris mentioned the impact on title 9. earliers in here speaking about olympic sports. thei guess you could ask same question about what's going to become of the olympic sports, sports.ue >> you mentioned that tight 9 was the greatest thing that clean athletics, it's the greatest thing that happened to the united states team.c if you look at the london games, the women of team u.s.a. were

wouldown country they have finished third in the medal count. so the u.s. olympic team benefited immensely by our in --e of inclusion of women. i dare say if we're not the best sport, i of women in don't think there's anybody who can say they're better than us. harshr, there is also a reality, the stresses that athletic programs could come under. scott said earlier, and this was the sameim and i at time, that nobody in these two gentlemen's situations ever lost job because the poor performance of their olympic sport program. of reality.fact people pay attention to basketball, they pay attention metrics of, and the which they get their donors and their fun raising done and their sponsorships and the tv ratings, that's are what drive it. so for us there are a lot of implications that could negatively impact it by not supporting programs.

before we got to this position of increasing the cost for the universities for their student athletes, we look at how many wrestling programs around country have shrunk over the years, the number of jip mass. ticks program that have shrunk to get that balance. so make no doubt about it that olympic sport programs are more soy under threat, now than they ever have been. >> pete, the topic of this panel supposed to be about money much where does the money go? it's certainly a big issue in terms of the number of things that have been in the news. suspended from the university of georgia for autograph.elling his should a player be allowed to likeness?wn >> i think it a great question, and it's a very complicated question. because the way i usually cover college sport fridays the bottom up and everything happens in recruiting. you get good through recruiting, and that's where a majority of the corruption happens.

in high school, on the academic side, through boost concerts what not. a black market in college football, it exists now, you occasionally get glimpses into it, in basketball it fueled football it's fueled through booster clubs and other ways. it's just its own little beast that happens. have you a billion there are predicated essentially on free labor, and this exists to fuel the billion dollar beast. so that said, i think everyone is happy the way it's working now, with that black market existing in the shadows as it does. to allow people to use their likeness to make which concept actually is very easy, oh yeah, we used be able to make money on the autograph, i think it owes pandora's box. if you can make money off your autograph, how much and where

okay, i'm going to sign with alabama, there's autographe an business set up, so when you sign with them you can automatically get this much. talk aboutn people paying players there are so many unintended consequences, for who haven't sat on the baseline and watched how it i don't think they understand how tricky that is. did you onlyup, pay basketball and football. do swimming athlete get paid for their autographs? everything is just going to of problem.kind like 10 years ago football safes 17, 18 guys, now they have 45. everyone is looking for an edge loophole opens in terms of the autograph type stuff and in of the likeness stuff, which is hard to disagree with, but in the reality and could getn of it, it very tricky and even, we see look autograph guys, just

like kind of your scum of the earth guys trying to make money then tell them on the back end, it would just open doors, think.ary so it's something that i think once you get the full cost of attendance, once you go past that marker, it gets really complicated. which we saw with the way judge sort of said when she set up in this complicated behind the o'bannondecision, i think there is some sensitivity about that these nextmakes , the caseawsuits involving martin jenkins, the player who is represented by jeff kessler, these cases which potentially could cost the schools a lot of money in retroactive differential between cost of andndance and grant and aid

what the future would be with the ability of athletes potentially to demand whatever can get. becomes like a really big deal. i think that's why the judge is trying to create something that somewhere in between. tos a really difficult issue balance. and the lawyers who litigate that case even now are trying to what the judger meant in certain ways, the way the injunction were set up. >> steve patterson, how do we what cost of attendance is, isn't that at the heart of this? >> there is a model that the government prescribes, i with say on every campus, and i've sat through a number of meetings of it's calculated differently everywhere. like our school it looks maybe full cost of attendance might be as cost as four or year. more a >> per athlete? >> per athlete. in our schools

conference, even in the same state, they don't have the same number. that's notalculation easy to come to across all the campuses. but i want to go back to something that was said earlier. at the end of the day there's this misperception that the free in college athletics and that's not accurate. if you're a full ride football player at the university of texas, the benefit you get from room, board, books, tuition, training, peoples, fees and medical is $69,000 a year. tax-free. so you add the taxes on that that puts you at the top third in theehold incomes united states. if you're a basketball player at the university of texas it's year, which you add the tops to put you in quartile. don't think student at leiths are being taken advantage of when they're in the top quartile of income in the united

states. >> tutoring, networking, alum any. of that nature, things that benefited me in my career, frankly, i was a backup on a really bad team, so i had else to do,thing and i realized that quickly. but the program itself was there to succeed, to have the tutors, to have the coaching specialization, to do the networking and it's still a network that i rely on today nearly 20 years later. so i do think it's hard to costs.y some of those i believe as a former athlete that by looking at me clearly bed hungry, and i was well fed throughout my time there, still am. but you really get an opportunity to really do more than just play football. than, you get an enhanced student experience, i the normalnd what student gets and i don't know how you put a dollar on that, was incredibly valuable.

>> completely on the wrong side of this as a cynical journalist, i'll back steve's point on this. agoid a study several years and tried to look at the value men's basketball scholarship and we came out to a $120,000at's closer to a year when you fold in all the other things. and trying to place a value on support and there are other things that do have actual val thaw you can tally to the free admissions games, and other types of things that people don't really think about. owe. >> if you subtract 6:00 a.m. break?es during spring i with definitely take that out of it. thanu know this way better i do, but in terms of demands placed on the athletes, that's i think some of this, where the friction begins to in.

some stuff that came to light in the hearing, and some of the thef we heard in o'bannoncase and that testimony the athletes do what they feel they have to do, forced to and thepected to do, nature of that tradeoff. andhow all of that works, the nature of the pressures that are and the demand placed on the athlete in relation to the amount of money that's being what they'reed on doing. >> i agree with steve patterson down the i led him road to counter that by saying free labor. a year ond 200 days the road, i'll on different campuses. to behungry narrative is one of the all-time false narratives. the week after the final four i had five different coaches and and likeators call me if he's going to behungry, he took miss money and blew it on

jordans. you really pare down the math what was these guys do, there is going to bed's hungry, it's his own fault, toically, is what from coast coast people told me. i spent a week behind the scenes at mississippi state doing an all access for sports illustrated two weeks ago, and let me tell you, i gained five being in their building. these guys come off the feel, they have like shakes to theirlly made flavor, taste, wait gain, loss, whatever, they go into the practice facility, there's a snack bar. some of it is because that rule changed, and the rule change in part -- good, by the way. these athletes should be fed. if there's one thing they should limit, it's feeding athletes and taking care of the athletes, medical care, those rights. >> and those things are changing? >> yes, they are and it's a thing. i don't think you'll get anyone in ask around college sports to disagree that these athletes

be taken care of to the fullest. behungry anding to somebody else made a headline, i think that's completely and just a false be it misuse of what they're given if they've got to that point. narrativei this though, that said, probably has it is theto do with fact that the establishment is making millions and millions of and in essence there are kids in many cases who come from nothing who have got their noses pressed up against the window saying where's mine. fair?t --you think about of the g.i.ide bill, college athletics provides largest need based merit aid

in the united states. i came and a children's home in mexico.w my outlet was sport. i got a scal larship to go to oregon state. year they dropped the sport because they said we -- and dropped men's track field. luckily u.c. santa barbara opportunity. i got a fifth year decision because of sport. my life's deindication is giving back to sport, providing for young people to get a degree and change the world. graduate we had 85 did from texas christian university. pro.one went only one went pro. think about all those other kids that will go onto do phenomenal things, yet we focus on napier have enough munchies. if you know what we give them, holy cow. a full ride to go to school, to make a decision, and a lot times those kids are kids, never had an opportunity to do something. from texass extra

last year, took five and a half years to graduate. four.ot done playing in we continued on their education degree.ey got their we don't talk about those stories. a lot of what's happening today lost lost our voice, we our voice to say what are we providing college athletics, headed.e we and we look at all this money over here and you look at the 523 athletes that we have on our campus and what they're doing throughout their lives and that's part of the problem. the few that got their nose pressed against the window are not talking to the masses. come to my campus, you say are you getting a raw deal, sir.say no i can believe i'm at tcu, i cannot believe i had this can't thank you enough. >> the guys who have the renoun and are doing things that create most of the revenue that support a lot of

the other athletes were also in guys whose 50 years decision after they get somewith school results in tough circumstances for these guys, whether or not it's forcal, whether or not whatever reason they didn't get tocations that enable them get jobs that are useful or gainful. a couple years ago that talked about and clustering in programs where we had guys who talked to us about getting degrees that in them not being qualified to do something lives.ful in their so i think there's a flip side i understand, and that on a broader basis that of people who are in sports outside of football and basketball, wills basketball, who would tell you, man, this is the greatest thing. >> that's a cynical view though, your job.

my job is to tell you it's half full. you wake up, half empty. my cup is overflowing with college athletics. necessarilyhink that somebody ask -- >> no, but what i'm saying is from a critique point of what a will be, i'm a soshology major. it was a phenomenal major for me. now someone could be a criminal justice major or whatever they may be in or social sciences. i'm not, especially at tcu, there's not a major you can hide in. so we're a little bit different. that still look at that, opportunity for that one individual to leave their place and go to school and get be, are degree it may they better off than where they were? that's the key question. they better off than where they and were can they go on to become productive members of society. i think i read that 27% of the united states population has a

college degree. 27%, 28%? is that so? think aboutt area, that. 72% of the united states population does not have a college degree. does that individual, for he may get, is he better off than not having that degree? >> i go back and i remember being a freshman, offensive line meeting, coach dave asked us to beur majors were going and i said i was going to major in english. son?id excuse me, i said english, you sure you got that right? yeah.said all right then, better not get any bad grades. i think i'll be all right, copy, thanks for asking. but there were guys that mailed in in academically, without a doubt, and there were guys that engineeringt degrees and business degrees, and got 0.0 grade averages and

got out of school. saw the whole gamut of that, and you are given at least the opportunity. and i know there's a lot. reasons why or why not people choose or don't choose, i'm not trying trying to say that everyone has the same situation. but while that can happen, there's also opportunity for the athletes as well. the generalt seeing competitiveness at american colleges and universitieses just high.g at an all time i saw a statistic at a major football college that the senior class that's graduating now, a third of them wouldn't get in as now.men so you have the admissions competition being as tough as ever, but the football team is on a plane here and here. why you're seeing the stuff at notre dame and other places. i think it's incumbent on the lot these places have million dollar centers, but that gap is not getting any smaller. it's going to be harder to get into school and if you want to be competitive in major college

football you'll still need to get to qualify. lot more create a situations than we've seen now, at the places who are actually indicating the kids, who aren't just putting them in i believe studies and pushing them through. that have a little academic soul, and you can debate how many do and don't, kids failingto see and you're going to see the pressure, kids cheat, kid do different things. i think that's inherent to the situation. you have 850s.a.t. in the room with 1400s.a.t. kids, they don't fit. so that's one of the problems we see on the bottom line. >> you don hear athletic saying they should be allowed to major in football. you go to school for dance, you dance.n you go to school for are, you major in art. football,school for

they want to know why you're putting them in organizational studies. that anybody here is an others al studies major. advocating actually for them to be part of the students experience, and to your graduates one went pro, you're not saying guys this of yourt be part routine. i give them a lot of credit, not away with classes or making all the classes specific to your sport. steve -- >> it easy to have the discussion revolve around the less than 1% of student athlete that can go onto be pros. even if they go onto the pros an average career of less than four years much they then have to figure out how to years on average after that. of texas, one of the top three baseball programs in the country, we average less

stoot athlete a year in the majoro play leagues. the years we average about three, maybe four that get roster. to be on an nfl so out of the 500 plus kid that campus everyour year, there might be a couple, three four five that go onto play. our job is to man positive outcomes for our student athletes. folks come in with all kind of minimums now,have we do have core courses that are required. don talke things we about here is the problems in up to --ate leading the problems in education leading up to college. you compare us to other countries in the planet we're in doing a, so we're not great job there, frankly. so you're right. as the g.p.a. and a.c.

s.a.t. scores go up, i cone get into the university of texas today. there twice, graduated twice. my son is there, my daughter. in today. get that's what's going on at universities awe over america. >> what i wanted to get to before was how do you manage that. administratorsas now? >> we make sure that we hire the right kind of people that can provide the kind of services to our student athlete, whether it's academic support, we spend more money than any other country inin the academic support. we make sure we got one on one getort, we make sure they through and stay on track to gr on time if they can. we provide services for them to come back if they don't gr on time, say they're a baseball want to tryay tan to make it after their third year, they can come back and finish their degrees. and we make sure we have career counsel l for them when they the place, we make if they get injured we provide medical twoices for them, up to

years after they leave the yfort to make sure they're healthy. so we provide these kind of sure we managee positive outcomes for our student athletes. left out pepu talks. reality is we laugh about it something like a matthew mcconaughey, it's oftentimes much more important than a like red meet somebody mccombs who is a great entrepreneur and can help kid foster their careers. that's the kind of thing you getioned earlier that you at universities, you get those kind of tools and meet those and go on with your .areer chris, you wanted to add something? >> no. ncaa?we need the >> you need something. it always amused me that the idea of these schools are going

brick away from the ncaa, to which i respond what are they is inevitablyhere going to be some type of a structure, i think, that schools you create ad once structure the whole thing is geared around the idea of keepbody trying to everybody else from cheating or doing something to get an else.age over somebody and so whether it under the nca's office or some other we haven't thought of a name of, seems like there's sort of be some underlying governance, something the enterprise together. ncaa, the institutionings make up the

ncaa. a great job for us in terms of academic reform, the what we're all about. really started out with safety time. happened, that have we've needed them and they've been great for us, but we've done a poor job of talking about we feed the ncaa, when they do for us. leadershipm up, our is on the board of directors. of our -- .hey're a necessity conferences really took power, tvyou will, when the contracts, in '83, and the said football. college football is not part of ncaa. it's eligibility and compliance, that is it. football is outside and conferences are taken over that realm. left was a void that was

through the antitrust of television way back when. now we're put in a position we have two different entities, the college football over here and ncaa. they're still governed by us as members. and today we're looking at the of it which is big numbers. and if we would have been back, want to say, in 1985 they talked about adding the cost of membership.o the we had to go to full cost of attendance, and our membership agree.t the -- at the time we were division two. two and were going to division one at the time, we had the same legislative power had.u.s.c. schools.wo different but you're asking them to vote on a bill about the cost of attendance. agree on it now. >> that seems like a perfect into anity to transition

discussion with the big five and we're goingel that to see. so the college football national championship, we mentioned it and i'm not sure if i've got the numbers exactly right, i it ways over $600 million a year from espn. going forward with this big five model, how is that the economicst with big pieces like this television contract for the football playoff, and for march madness. future world going to look like for your schools and like the onechools that you used to work for, san luis oh business -- obispo. been in five conferences in 16 years. here like nomads. the southwest conference broke up and at that time we did

to get backe could in the big 12. that was our goal. we hit a perfect storm, we hired a chancellor that has a vision that's second to none, we hired a football coach that we're 1-11 to the rose bowl, our we're in. grown, and and that is fantastic. yet it is daunting, because i we got in, boy, it calm.be there's more turbulence now than ever. they're saying hey, what about us, i was just there a year ago. understood their plight. faculty wantsour to be harvard monday through friday. christian, on sunday. and i suffer from adult a.d.d., cannot serve all three masters well, but think about that. and you're running a business

based on people's passion. >> what do you say to a school which is a state highly competitive football program, but now is on the looking in? >> for the next -- our television revenues for the college playoff went up a little less than double. schools -- >> big five. >> yes. more resourced conferences it went up a little less than double. that next bunch of five conferences, their tv refuse up five times what they were before, so they've caught up in terms of the amount revenue. >> percentage or dollars? less money tolot get five times, $10,000, than it you have $200 million. 200 million.

that may or may not be a val i way of looking at it. i'm not disputing that there's more money there for everybody. but, you know, the impact of that and how much more there is outside and how those schools then make up that gap, i think is going to be an interesting question. they're better off today than they were before. >> i think the gap has always and this power five branding is just perpetuated the perception a little more. financial gap has always been huge, and while i do have because those power five recruiting lines are going to have to fight. they were have notes two years ago. they just weren't quite at the fined as have notes.

what i'm saying is i think they've actually done a poor job in the football playoff if letting somebody know if a boise is a 3-0, they can still get in and again i'm not going to say that doubled the access, but the whole point is their lot in life is pretty similar now. what they're fighting more is perception. and i agree with steve that you can parse numbers and say five times as much. it's easy to be cynical about that kind of stuff. but at the end of the day they're about where they were before. >> they're going to get more difficult over time for that gap to be overcome. the gap that's occurring now between texas' budgeting and other schools in the fbs or within division one, every year

that gap grows wider. does that mean it's impossible for savannah state to be able to compete on any level? maybe yes, maybe no. there have been teams that have done some pretty cool things. and how those -- and for sure all those opportunities will be there. it's -- i happen to think and there are a lot of people who have bet a lot of money who are really smart business men that at the moment believe it or not are actually still underleveraged as business propositions. companies like i.m.g. are gering a lot of money that those businesses are underleveraged. people running i.m.g. are not in the business to lose money. they're paying these schools a lot of money thinking that they will then be able to

commercially recoup that get get a lot more money. how does that cycle continue to go and what is going to be the impact i think is a really i want resting question. >> if you look from us -- and i have a unique perspective of where we were in terms of the economics. >> where would you rather be? >> of course. steve just told you how great life is at fresno state. would you rather be in the mountain west or big 12? >> you look at from this perspective though. economically when i was in the mountain west conference and things were happening to the place where we are today, one is perception. two, the big boys. but i was the new york nanchingees of the conference. we had the biggest budget, we won, we were it. today i'm in the big 12, i have the lowest budget. there's a huge gap. the economics within the 64 are

still great. but we're in a position now where we wanted to be from our particular institution in the big 12. that was the biggest, and best conference in our region. it made sense. we were breath ren we have been playing texas since 1900. we lost last week to bay legislator. but the idea we have been playing these schools for a long time. and when the conference shifts we're now playing san diego state, they have no regional draw to us. yet the television, the american eye ball has determined that these five conferences drive all the traffic. think about that. they drive the traffic. we're a little bit david and goliath. that was a one-off. the terms on any given saturday look at the ratings who is driving that traffic. and if you're a school running a school, an athletic program based on people's passion and wanting to do what's right for your institution, for us to get

in the big 12 is the right move for what we wanted. for our president, for our student body, everyone who wanted this, i can look gack and media will back at this. and media will say, there's only two schools that made it into the power 64, if you will. us and utah. that is it. it's an interesting dynamic when you think about our breath ren going, where would you rather be? every one would rather be in the big 12 today. >> those institutions deciding what kind of investment, how much they want to invest. it could be from the school, it could be from the alumns, it could be from other donors. from the student body. from businesses. you know, northwestern is not a big school, tcu is not a big school. we're going to have a heck of a

battle on thanksgiving. i don't know whose going to win. but if the schools want to create an environment over whose going to invest in athletics because they perceive there's a value for the university they can decide to make that investment. what they can't do is not make that investment sit on the outside and criticize the system. there's a lot of schools who have made the decision we are not going to invest. and some of the most successful universities in the country. the ivy league is not going to dry up and blow away. chicago hasn't disappeared. so it's a matter of where you want to make your investment. >> what does the future look like then for the schools who choose not to make the investment that the 64 making? >> i don't think they're going to be in a position to take advantage of the eye ball that is chris is talking about to drive the interest in their university the same way the schools are that he decided to make that iniestment of >>.

>> that's a chicken or egg discussion. >> no, no. >> but how am i supposed to make that happen? student fees? do we take institutional money and drive more of that into the program? those are the kinds of questions that schools, they start to grapple with. are you going to ask the government of the state to do this? you look at the program in hawaii -- i realize that is an outliar program on a variety of levels. that program is facing unbelieveably difficult choices. and there are state legislators in that state who felt the solution is that the state government ought to help support the athletics program there. and you can debate that on a

public policy level and whether or not that's a good investment by the state of hawaii or whether it isn't, but there are a lot of these decisions that get made that create financial situations for people who don't have a say in it. for example, on a student fee basis. whether or not the fee structure for university for students ought to be driven by those kinds of conversations. you know, i think that raises some really atlanta questions. >> it's getting a little too either/or. of course they wanted to get back into the big 12. that's where their roots were from. we can trade notes later for thanksgiving. the fact of the matter is when you look at my school they left the mac thinking they were going to do bigger and better things. they went independent and then they traveled through the midwest. they came back to the reality that the mac was the perfect

fit and they wanted to focus on being part of a strong mid-tier conference. it fit. they've been focusing on that as a school and one of the downsides is that a school that size don't have the robust programming of sports beyond to the number of levels let's say texas or texas christian does. but they did feel comfortable that was where they wanted to be as a school and they've been pretty successful in terms of winning football games and being part of what felt right for their brand and for their university. they don't have ambitions to be the next big 12 expansion school or part of the big 10. so i don't know if every school is trying to be in or out. >> to steve's pointed in terms of an investment. i was at rice university athletic director from

2006-2009 and i remember being interviewed. this is my fifth-year anniversary. they asked me two questions. can you raise money for a football stadium and can you get us into a bc conference? now, i will agree to anything. whatever you say. why do you want to do that? because you in this room are going to build that football stadium. that football stadium is $164 million raised. no debt. donors decided this is what we are going to do. >> if you have the donor base and you can do that. >> but this is just my story. this is our story. we had six people who gave us $15 million each and i referred to we nickle and dimed 1, 2, 5 million. >> a lot of nickles and dimes. >> yes, sir. a you've got to love oil. but the idea was this is way before the big 12 -- we were in

the mountain west conference. we were heading to boise in the festival. this is the ambition of what we needed to do. that was so awe inspiring to have a board with this auddashese goal was fantastic. but donors, not knowing what lied at the end of the tenl. we dipped our toe for a month and that went out we were fortunate to get in the big 123. but the same thing we're building a new basketball arena donor funded. and our chance lors challenged, is the athletic program will not be an incumbrence. we will raise that money. that is a choice. our donors have really inspired and grappled with. it's been fantastic. and the university now has a $30 million gift for a business college. donors say we're a great institution. but they've made that

investment. that was their all-goal. i can't speak for others but that was the university our size. >> that's great. it's -- that speaks well to the donors, to the universities, coto your ability to convince those people do donate. but you look at a school like university of california which just has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into their facilities and some of that was simply they had to seismically retro fit a football stadium built over a major earthquake fault. so there's a serp amount you've got to deal with. but the way that kind of fipancing works is a different setup than you're talking about and where that money comes from. and the california athletics department has a model that works for it great now. but if it doesn't and something craters where is that money coming from? is that coming from the state? from the students?

what kind of impact is that going to have ond bond rating for that university? and the downstream impact and the bills they're having to do all that stuff. i think to me again, as you look down the road those are the kinds of questions that i think -- you guys have having to deal with and administrators areville to deal with and students are to some extent have a voice in and to some extent as customers of the universities are having foisted upon them in order to do that. >> that's not true. >> how many -- >> wait. the department of education said you can't do that any longer. at the university of texas we had to go market to our students what's now the big ticket at tufert of texas that replaced what used to be called the bed tax that everybody had to pay and we wound up with a better revenues, more students

buying them, and better product for the students because we had to ask them what they wanted and go sell to them. so it's not fair to say you're imposing something on the student body. the reason cal had to replace their football stadium is because their board of riegets said you have to fix it now. and it was a difficult construction projuct. out of the 300 million they spent they spent about 175 million doing seismic which got them no revenue. they could have potentially made a different decision. they could have said maybe we'll go play with the 49ers, with the raiders play. we're not going to have football any more. they made the decision to keep and fix it. that's their decision. >> i'm not disagreeing that's their decision but there are implications and situations ere students have a very moderate -- a small voice in

whether or not, for example, student fee increase is incomb posed, where those decisions are made at the governing board level. >> i think you're misinformed on that. they have to go to a vote. student body votes on that. >> that's not true. there are state institutions where the fee structures at schools are decided on by governing boards. there may be student representatives on those governing boards but that's going to be one vote. or perhaps there are different vehicles for students to do things. but i think there have been plenty of instances where these kinds of fee increases have occurred where -- and there is no perfect way. ,000 an't canvas 75 students and make a decision. >> i think everyication is different. from our perspective we're only talking about where we are

today. we have chosen to be great in all endeavors. if you look at recruiting a faculty -- and i use this all the time. if we're going to recruit the great chemists and students, we can't use 1950 bunsen burners. you have to evolve. you have to build, you have to recruit the finest students. at tcu we're trying to compete with texas, harvard, yale, princeton for the finest students in the country to come. big businesses -- colleges and universities are big business. where is my little johnny going to school? we had a chance legislator -- chance already we were not ranked academically. today we are ranked 72nd in the country. we're recruiting some of the finest kids to come to our campus. but you have to invest in chemistry, physics. and we don't talk about that part of the business. we focus on another letsics

ecause between 3 -- athletics. we make up 90% of the media but we're only 3% of the entire budget in some cases maybe 10. but the focus is a small focus when you look at the totality of what a university business is. we focus on that little piece. >> so we've established the fact that you're on one side of the fence or the other. what's the ante if you want to be on the side of the fence with the haves and not the have nots? you've been on the other side? >> i couldn't tell you that because you start to look at one of the things for us when this whole thing was a geography we were in the right spot the right media market. you can think about boise. >> what are the investment that is you were -- that were part of programs that you were associated with that you had to make? give us an idea.

>> what chris hasn't said is the dumb luck of the s.e.c. poaching two big 12 schools that allowed them to come in. they could have built all the stadiums but if the big 12 stayed solid they would still be the yankees. >> texas a&m. >> always be in the big east because nothsing left and they in the we would be big east. traveling east, my friend. >> but we're here to talk about money so give us some kind of an idea. what does it cost? >> in terms of the investment? think about it. we didn't know -- when we made the investments we made with an unnonet future. we didn't know that the -- unknown future. we were in the mountain west conference. that was our choice with the idea what a new football stadium sustain our growth? would it continue to move forward? we didn't know all of a sudden

the opportunity would be there. we did not. so it's hard to sit there and say you've got to do this in order to do that. when we were in the position -- i tell this funny story never underestimate a college keg party. >> amen. >> and here's the deal. i'm in college with a guy named jamie dixon, a basketball coach at pit. i thought he went to santarba bra. he said no i'm coming in. we concocted getting in the big east saying this is who we need to talk to because that was our goal. the time they were in danger of losing their hold. if they dropped tcu they maintained their points. so they wouldn't drop. it was a perfect marriage. who would have known that they were going to leave? we were content with that. but all the moves we made had happened without the knowledge of what was going to take place in the landscape. we had been perfectly content

in the big east knowing what we knew then. but once the land scaped changes because of our geography and dumb luck we're i believe to get into the big 12. there's no number. there's no magical number because boise has done wonderful things with their investments. byu has done wonderful things. san diego state, cincinnati, connecticut, these are teams where you start to look, you can start putting cases. part of it is our geography and investment. >> right time, right keg party. >> we were successful. that's right. >> using cincinnati as an example. they have an accumulated operating debt in the tens of millions of dollars and they're paying money every year or the school, or in some form of fashion somebody is paying interest ond that debt. that debt is sitting there. that was a decision that was made by the university to make that investment. going back to the question that you were asking about what's

the answer. i mean, and they have done things facilitywise and so forth. you look at some of what's happened around the pac 12 since the new television contract that occurred there. these are schools that are -- that were established schools and you look at what's gone on thin the facilities boom and they paid football coaches particularly within the conference it's been a huge increase. and these were places that are already in. they didn't have to ante up to get in. they were already there. and so -- >> they have to see it though. >> you're still playing the game. and there's not -- you know, it's an amazing -- you look around and see if you know this really well from what's now going on at arizona state in terms of the facility and quest for the sport village.

that went on there. and all that was being seeded by that television money. you know, so that's where the ante is. it's in the facilities, in the coaching salaries and doing all those things. >> are you looking at it a little too black and white? i know that's what you're supposed to do you said you were a cynical journalist. if there's an ose car wild quote that said cynic is the price of everything and the value of nothing. you hear about the olympic games and cost overrun. but people think about the university of texas and what's the brand value of the university of texas and what does the football team add and what does that do in terms of recruiting professors and top students and donors and having matthew mcconnaughay do his true detective thing on the sideline for your athletes. i think there's a little bit of cynicism involved in saying

either they made a profit or they didn't and there wasn't other answer larry benefits that happened. whether that's the 50-year program or the brand that's the university. the first thing we've said to cities when we've been looking at a potential olympic bid at 2024 if you're trying to make money as the first line then you're not going at it for the right reason. to say we want to have them be cost overruns and be burdens on the cities. but you have to see a bigger picture. i totally understand that your job is to get to those black and white numbers but i think there is some inherent value beyond just whether or not the profit and loss categories for those schools and the investments. >> i will go beyond that value that you're talking about. look at what the economic engines that these athletics departments are for their communities on a weekend in athens, georgia, in oxford,

mississippi, in tuscaloosa, alabama, in auburn, alabama. and you look at the amount of money that gets generated as a result of that. i mean, to me if that's -- you know, talk about sort of the public policy piece of it and how that's going. it's -- there's a lot of questions about is that appropriate, is that what college enterprise is all about. and i'm not saying it is or it isn't. if you look at the value of these things, the value of the texas football program every saturday in austin in terms of the number of hotel rooms that are occupied, the number of people sitting in restaurants after the ball game, you drive up and down interstate in florida after a game in gainesville and the cracker barrel is full every saturday night. and that's -- that's what's going on. you know.

>> sounds like we need better restaurant choices. i'm kidding. look at this real quick talking about the academic program. the thing about tcu, seven or eight years ago our sath was what it was. ll of a sudden the rise of the chancellor and football coach perfect storm now ten years later we have 20,000 for those 1600 spots. we are the media, we are the brand of our institution. our sat and act have gone through the roof. the quality of student has gone through the roof because the exposure has brought -- there's a president that dropped sports in the big ten years ago, long-time member. and 25 years after, 30 years after the fact, he said the biggest mistake was leaving the big 10. mainstream kids love college athletics. they love, the alums love it.

we're pact every game. it's a wonderful experience. we win, lose or draw it has become the fiber of our institution and become the marketing brand. for good it's great, for bad it's bad but we make up 90% of olt media. and that brand -- we were a good regional university because of the vision of our chancellor and through the rise of sport we have changed the face of tcu. i firmly believe that. and -- >> everett university in the country. >> so there -- every university. >> but when you only make up 3% of a budget and think about the engine that is university academic achievement and greatness and you're a small portion of it, we focus so much on the small portion not just the totality of what we bring to the table. >> let's talk for a moment about basketball. we've been spending most of our time talking about football.

is there any difference in the calculus between the two sports in terms of the way it needs to be managed going forward given the different i guess amounts of being on one side of the fence versus the other? what do you think? >> i think college basketball right now has a giant problem. the regular season is completely irrelevant. i went to a texas tcu game at texas last year. i almost fell asleep. texas was good, tcu wasn't. not at all. > wow. >> you've name dropped your chancellor so many times today. >> contract's up. >> but i really think that college basketball if you look at the ratings are completely flatlined right now. regular season. the regular season is completely irrelevant. i had a coach tell me this

summer that they had their league meetings and the espn came in and basically said the mac football wednesday night game of the week, basically outrates carolina-duke. so we're an event-driven culture. every saturday there's an event on campus at tcu, texas, et cetera. there's so much oversaturation and one of the negative reverberations is everyone is on tv. so it's not special any more. most nights in january i can watch nine or ten games. i find myself watching less because if you can watch vcu during the regular season -- >> you have some serious west hoops if you're watching less. >> i love college basketball.

i think it's a compelling sport in a lot of different ways but there's no juice left in the regular season. i think it's somewhat oversaturation, the prism the sport is covered. somebody is saying they're not going to be a three-seed, and the tournament is three months away. the tournament is great. there's notting better in sports than a tournament. it's this awesome beast. it rates well. it's compelling on all soshts of levels. the have-nots have a chance. but i think right now regular season college basketball is an abysmal place. i don't see the jeanie going back in the bottle. >> i would totally agree with you there about our discussion earlier about expanding the size of the football tournament which would i think would be a bad move. but that's a different discussion. terms of the money you con,

which has won -- u. con which has won how many titles, they're not part of the big 5. are they? you can get away with it more in basketball than you can in football. basically what realignment has taught us is that basketball doesn't matter. and that's fine. follow the money. right? we're in washington. the money is in foonl, the oney follows football. when is the last time you sat down and said i'm going to watch a football game today? there might be one or two a season. >> i went to maryland. >> any saturday. >> that's kind of an acc game now. i keep looking for maryland in the acc standings. >> there's a few reasons though i think for that. because people want an emotional attachment to their institution or their team or their game. so there are a few institutional problems.

one, quite frankly having sat both is the one and done role rule. i think it's bad. the only people it's good for are the agents that are driving the top few guys that come out that can make it into the pros after playing one year. but it makes it more difficult to establish an emotional attachment with the fan at the university because then they're gone. the second issue really is the number of transfers. i think it's something like 40% of college basketball players trance fer after their second year. so we should have fewer opportunities to transfer and have a model more like baseball. if you want to go to the pro's after a year go. god bless you. the other guys that make the mistake of going early are limiting their lifetime earnings. stay in college and get a degree. so if they're in baseball stay

three years. it would be better for the product. the last thing is do a better job of marketing. our game presentation was terrible last year and we're fixing that. this year it's going to be dramatically different looking because you've got to go out and work hard to get the people to spend the time and entertainment dollar to come to one of your events. >> you're probably going forward in football you're not going to have a have-not win a championship but it's entirely possible it could happen in basketball. why is that? does it cost less? >> you need one player. >> ok. >> so the game itself. you're saying the game itself. but what about the economics? because we're here to talk about money. is it easier to be a have-not in college basketball? >> the perceived have-nots are really haves. >> but like marquette has a bigger budget. we look at them through a

football paradigm exclusively. even if you look at a place like marquette, it's just where are traditions? basketball traditionally because of the espn and big east is is more market driven. those schools who have built up a good reputation in the northeastern region and basketball just costs less. you're going to have to pay a coach the staff is one-eighth of the size. so you can do a lot more with less in basketball which is why butler was able to do what it did. why in the basketball league fox put a dump truck of money on the big east to play. they couldn't say no. 57bd so even though the ratings were miniscule, they barely registered like a little blip. so i just think how completely different the sports are financially and he's right you do need one player.

they have a freshman recruit who is going to be one and done that transforms them from a very good team to a potential fine four team. it really -- everything can turn on one player and it's been that case since larry bird and you can go all the way back through history. i don't think that's changed. >> do you think the expansion of the tournament to what is it 60 teams? >> 69. >> do you think that has mean.buted to this -- i the expansion was basically to protect some of the haves. isn't that why they did it? in the mountain west, they split and they didn't want to give another at-large. i don't know. i should know this probably. but i don't think that small tournament expansion has had a big factor. >> i think it's the number of tv games, as you were saying there's so many games to watch.

and if you're going to compete -- it's really two different markets the viewing audience and who is in arena. we need to do a better job of marketing and selling and creating an interesting environment. because the pros have gotten so good. college really hasn't done a good job across the board at creating a fun environment for basketball. you go to this guy's place it's rock and roll crazy for tennis. you've got to make it faun, entertaining engaging environment. and when you can't get the emotional attachment because people are transferring, it's a tough sell. >> i think eist also become -- this is part and parcel of the conference realignment. some of that was driven by financial conversations and a lot driven by football. but the trickle-down effect has been interesting as well. because you've seen this kind of shuffle continue its way down into various different

leagues. so you're seeing -- you're seeing alignments and games between teams that just don't feel familiar in a way. and what conference -- what conference is butler in this year? you know, these are -- i think that's had an impact on it as well. and that's certainly been driven by financial conversations i think. >> if i was a missouri basketball fan and used to seeing them all these years and now you see auburn, kentucky and florida which is great, you see a good game. but all those other teams, and mississippi state rolls in. i call it the cubecal factor. if you -- i live in bost so i use it like this. if you work at an office in boston and people went to different schools, they've had dreadful home attendance in basketball. i think part is there's no connection to them. now duke comes in and it's

great. you have two great nights a year. but florida state, there's no reason to care. >> especially in a competitive market. >> but that's a separate issue from what you were talking about before. you as athletic directors want to fill your buildings and create an exciting event. but really the national discussion is driven by how popular are these things and people's homes. and right now college basketball is having a big problem. can you put the jeanie back in the bottle? >> i think it would help if you didn't have the one and done structure that we have today. >> what would you like to see? >> i would like to see the baseball setup. if somebody wants to come out of high school -- >> let them go. >> they should be coming to the university because they want to be a part of the university. they shouldn't be using it as a training ground. >> i think that hurts the overall perception of college athletics when you do have

these kind of tourist students. >> when ivert at the university of arizona they had a great basketball brand and you could say basketball was our bell cow and football was not in terms of the economic budget in terms of an annual basis. but the one and done doesn't hurt in arizona, or kentucky because their fan base has been loyal at the program competing at the highest levels. we've been in four tournaments in 60 years. four. try and look at your success and -- and we were in the mountain west conference arguably was better than the big 1 in terms of basketball. - 12 in terms of basketball. they did not resonate in the metro plex. they're good teams. they didn't resonate. >> i would suggest as a fan that you're right about the brand. combreas could follow those players for four years. >> they were still one and done. but for the 20 years, he was in

the final four. he had an amazing record of getting in the tournaments. for us we were in the mountain west conference and -- i mean the big 12. we had to invest. why? because our brand as basketball is nonexistent. but if we're going to make any dent outside exposure we have to have a facility to recruit the athletes. because we don't have a long history of basketball tradition. but if you have the shiny new penny and the right coach and say they do care, it's like bringing a student saying they just built a brand new physics building, they have a peace prize winner from pennsylvania, i'm going there. the same concept in basketball. we're going to make that investment to hopefully you see a return down the road. but basketball -- remember i was running the business, we played a game against kansas.

at the time they weren't revenue sharing. god, we must be big money, it was $25,000 for a sunday cbs game. but a game against washington, against arizona paid so much more. it's gone from big west monday to big east tuesday, now we focus so much on the tournament that in college football for a moment every game is critical. >> it's a cautionary tale. >> you've got 12 games and you are now watching the media going crazey from who is in, who is out, who is moving. it's a six-month juggernaut of your stomach being tied up. i bought a case of pepto bismol because every game means something. in college basketball you can win your tournament and get in. have a magical run. and next thing you know you've got a coach because everything is great. >> i'm going to say it from a

fan's perspective. i have interest as a fan because i learn about them. pete writes about them over two, three seasons. it's not one and done. some people >> so many people around america probably never knew ?evin durant played what if he had been there for three or four years? then that would have been interested in watching. >> the quality of basketball certainly would have been better. >> but the quality of product that you're watching -- no offense -- why would i watch texas basketball? i don't know anything about them. if i don't go to texas, i'm saying. as a casual fan you do turn to the tournament. >> but the one and done. magic johnson left after his sophomore year. look at michael jordan this has not been recent. igged la. >> but it's getting worse and

more pronounced and certainly at certain schools. >> i'll mention going to pac 12 and i'm going to have to buy at the airport. i can name four or five players but if you go through the wole league i can't tell you who has come back. maybe at usc. but this is my job. and i don't know. so the casual fan who likes sports and has nine games to watch doesn't know. and by the time he does know the play ser gone. it's a different model for kentucky basketball. just as for texas football. we have to wrap this up. i want to close with a question. if you had to fix one thing of rding the money aspect where we were heading or one

thing that concerns you the most of the road we're heading down what is it? >> i think one of the things -- one of the places where we're headed right now that's scary to me is that as -- and especially at the lower-tiered schooled in the big five. as they struggle to build buildings to compete, they struggle to catch up, i think we could see a purge of nonrevenue sports to focus more money on the sports that matter financially most. i think that's a trend we're going to see. and i don't think that's good for anybody. >> if we go down the road of paying football and men's basketball players as the agents and -- their agents, trial lawyers, would like us to do -- and i've got plenty of friends who are trial lawyers including my little brother -- we're going to be put in a situation as a series of enterprises that we're going to be forced to make that

decision. the nonrevenue sports are going to get eliminated. you're going to see schools asked to go from 16 sports down to 12. i've already sat in meetings where those conversations have happened. and that's bad for the country, that's bad for olympic sports, that's bad for opportunities for people to get out of lesser environments, get to university, and have a better outcome in life. >> we just can't lose our voice. we've lost the opportunity for young people. and with focusing on finance today of two -- if you think of college another letics, it's a failed business model in the way it's interpreted in the courts. we have two ref new streams and we are the largest feeder for the olympics. opportunities for students across the spectrum have been phenomenal. but because america has a vivacious appetite for sports,

then we are running that program to fund our entirement program. and thank god we have that ability to provide opportunity for a lot of people yet our voice is being lost by trial lawyers, our voice is being lost in the media that says guess what everyone deserves a piece of the pie. we're providing unbelievable opportunities for young people. i hope the train heabt left the station where we can regain some sanity in the amateurs model. >> as someone who play it had sport i hate to say it but football has become too big and overbearing anddom nited so much that i fear we're losing sight of some of the thing that is make our universities great. the opportunities for women in sport. i don't say that because i work at the program but we also have athletes that come from sports that aren't part of the university. i think it's an essential part of the university life to have that sports program and what i

hope to see is that as more revenue comes into collegiate sports through say football and basketball, that hopefully some of that money will continue to filter into the world of olympic sports and women's sport to help promote that on campus. >> last word. >> i'm glad i'm going last. i agree with pete. the notion of a broad-based another letics program it's becoming in some places administrator an endangered speech eathies and i think you're seeing some of that kind of -- just the whole disconnect of who the programs are for. and what's the purpose? the students are turning away from going to football games. is it just sort of about entertainment and sort of circuses? and is it the part of what college is and whether or not that's going to happen or whether it's just going to --

if it's just going to become really heavily professionalized and the impact of that across what college athletic programs look like. >> steve, patrick, chris, steve and pete thanks for taking the time to join us today. i want to remind everybody we have another forum coming up shortly and we hope you'll join us for that. thanks for coming. [applause] >> today on c-span a look at where the funding for isis

comes from and what the u.s. and its allies are doing to cut off their financial backing. the treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence will be speaking at the carnegie endowment for international peace. d.c. circuit court of appeals judge janice rogers brown spoke at the heritage found dation yesterday as part of their legal lecture series. her remarks focused on the topics of judicial restraint and the rule of law. she was nominated to the d.c. circuit by president george w. bush in 2003 and confirmed by the senate in 2005. this is just over an hour.

>> thank you for joining us. it's my privilege to welcome you, those joining us on the website and c-span tv. we would ask everyone in house to make sure that your cell phones have been turned off especially when weather bull tins come. it's amazing what happens in a room. and of course we encourage you

to watch our program on line. the honorable edwin mees served as attorney general and serves us as the fellow emertuss. mr. mees. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it's a pleasure for me to join john in welcoming you to the heritage foundation and particularly to the annual distinguished lecture. this is our most prestigious legal event of our legal centers preserve the constitution series. it's also part of our legal strategy forum which was taking place today and tomorrow.

where the c.e.o.'s and primary legal officers of the freedom-based public interest law organization thrussout the country, some 40 of them, get together to plan their efforts to defend the constitution and to bring justice to the people of the united states. so we're glad to have them with us in the audience this evening. the lecture of course is named after the supreme court justice joseph story for two reasons. first because of his dedication to the constitution and secondly because of his influence on the law. he had one of the most outstanding impacts on the development of our system of justice and particularly the development of the law itself in the united states during his time on the court. as a matter of fact, oliver wendell holmes particularly said that story, who did not always agree with justice story, said that he had done more than any other english speaking man in this century --

his century -- to make the law lumenuss and easy to understand. he also served as a professor of law at harvard university. he was almost single handedly brought that university's law school into being since the year before he arrived they had only one student. eexpanded the student body as part of his contribution there. while on the supreme court he continued's a pattern that the early justices always followed to ride circuit for the appellate courts and occasionally trial courts in the northeastern part of the united states while at the same time continuing to teach at harvard and also to do his duties on the supreme court of the university. -- united states. so he had a biggy schedule that he followed and carried out in a very distinguished and

dedicated manorer. noting just his experience and his broad reach of his activities relating to the justice system, we have tonight a distinguished guest who has an even broader experience in the law. she has literally had experience in virtually every aspect of our justice system. she is married to dueie parker who is with us here this evening. she graduated from the ucla law school and received her llm degree from the university of virginia and their graduate program for judges. between to show the variety of her experience, between graduation from law school and her appointment to the federal bench, she served depirts of all in every branch of california government. she drafted bills initially in her first experience in the legislative council's office dealing there with the state legislature. she served in the attorney

general's office which is almost a separate branch in california. she was deputy secretary and general counsel of the business and housing organization there. and then ultimately was legal affairs secretary to governor pete wilson. she then had experience in private practice in one of the state's distinguished law firms there. and then went on to her experience in the judiciary first as an associate justice of the third district court of appeal in sacramento and then on the california supreme court. because of this vast experience in her distinguished service in 2005 president george w. bush appointed her as the judge of the court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit where she continues her distinguished service to our nation.

so ladies and gentlemen, please join me in recognizing the joseph story distinguished lecturer for the year 2014, the honorable janice rogers brown. [applause] >> thank you. you are a lovely audience. i probably should sit down now. but i want to thank the heritage foundation for asking me to deliver this year's joseph story lecture. i am honored and frankly a bit intimidated to be in such company. i have attended many of the other lectures. i especially want to express my gratitude to ed mees for his

friendship for his many kindnesses and for being such a miven. for those of you who do not speak yiddish it means a man of integrity and honor. but for general mees' courage and integrity, conversations like this probably would not be taking place. we are all indebted beyond anything we can repay because he took seriously his oath to support and defend the constitution. this is where i -- >> [applause] this is where i usually offer my caveats and tell people i'm not a scholar or a philosopher and certainly not a theelogen. but today i'm going to do something a little different and i'm going to speak as a conservative. and as a conservative judge. one who has the good for tune to be particularly ill-educated, having escaped an

ivy league education, i now find myself free to think however i like. i suppose if i had been around when judge story was teaching at harvard i might have rethought that. but as a conservative, i spend most of my time thinking about the present evils of this world. unlike my liberal counter parts who spend their time thinking of new ones. these days frankly i find myself a little like gladys night thinking i've really got to use my imagination to think of good reasons to keep on keeping on. for those of you too young to know gladys, you tube. as i grow older i have developed a new appreciation plan, reform

reform. > that's why discussions generally have had a distinctly remedial if not downright aljeek tone. we speak of restoring, reviving and defending the constitution. i do not think our sense of urgency is overblown. our panic is justified. the title of this speech adds my incrimental bit of the theme of preserving the fortress of our liberties. my analogy is drawn from the stone mason. i suggest we might consider repointing the constitution. those who do not live in old brick buildings may be unfamiliar with that term. when we first moved to washington we purchased a row house in the district. being from the valley, california, a part that has

little experience of row houses or old houses of any kind, we were completely unprepared to deal with the maintenance required for structures that had been withstanding the elements for more than a century but even as we were stacking, moving boxes our next door neighbors warned us to expect strong smells, and dust because they were having their house reappointed. what? they explained that the destruction of the bricks was caused most from the martyr between. it is a pains taking and labor intensive process and as i learned more about it i became aware of the critical importance of the replacement cement having properties similar to the original more tar. newer and stronger cements might actually be too good. according to author of the art of the stone mason, modern

materials can hasten the deterioration of the stone by being so unyielding that over the seasons of change they actually crack the bricks, a calamity nothing can repair. the result is a pile of rubble. thus repointing seemed the perfect analogy to our task in supporting and defending the constitution. is it not the new ingredient, progressivism, the love child of the modern enlightenment that has ruined the constitutional edfass and impoverished our original understandings? so we must ask ourselves, what was the ingredient of that more tar, that binding spell that gave us statements like adams and madison, judges like marshall and story, and presidents like washington and lincoln? what made america possible, limited government conceiveable, and can we, so greatly changed, recapture the

optimism and certitude of the founders ia world of big government and judge nays writes none of them could have imagined. or, was a republic, peopled by free men, a naive and childish dream to which we widser, more sophisticated grown ups should bid good ridance? though america seems a miracle was it only a product of its time destined to fail as the sensibilities failed from the national conscience? is there anything to be learned about constitutional repointing from a judge like joseph story? perhaps. a couple of examples of constitutional interpretation based on two very different species of normtive reasoning may bring the issues into clearer focus. one time the judges wrote based on the anchor of a fixed constitution. joseph story was part of that