lives. lets reduce legislation. to 2015 c-span student camp competition is under way, open to all high school students. the list of roles and how to go to arted studentcam.org.

>> good afternoon, and welcome, myron.e is the national press club is a leading professional organisation for journalists committed to our professional events such as this. for more information about the national press club please our website at press.org.

on the half-hour members worldwide i would like to welcome our speaker. our head table includes guests of ours speaker as well as who are journalists club members. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences, you can follow the action on twitter. after our guest speech concludes we will have a period and d answer will ask as many questions as time permits. i would each of you like to stand briefly as your name is announced. quinn woodward,

christel can't a athletic director at texas university. laurence denzil, of the amrick, chairman committee. amy morris, 99.1 fm. anna miller, health and use report. a year ago scott received a

four-year contract extension as ceo of the us olympic committee since he had from 2010. this degree of stability is rare for the committee. that his predecessor lasted less than a year. when blackburn took the reins, the committee had be embarrassed by chicago's failure to land at 2016 olympic games, in fact chicago finished last. the organisation was criticised not being able to with the olympic committee. unlike what happens in many

countries, the us oc receives no government funding and is largely dependent on corporate sponsorships. reign, n's revenue has increased. blackman successfully navigated scheme from feigning from any political speech during the winter olympics. many were upset with the laws. the usoc has a strong interest in cartilage athletics because sony olympians are college athletes. at the london games last

please join me in welcoming him to the national press club. thank you myron, it is an honour for us to be here. thanks to the big 12 for hosting us. i would have loved to have heard from bob today. bob has been a member of our board to 8 years, i know first hand what a great thinker and speaker he is. bob you are probably watching and i wish you a speedy recovery. today is college athletics. you know all the stakes for the university and the athletes also an incredibly

topic for the olympic games. you a brief ive introduction, we've been around since the late 1800s. there was out right conflict us and the oc. that all changed with senator cat stevens who was from alaska.

the act did a number of things, a congressionally chartered the oc so it surprise you to learn that we are a 5013c organisation, we do accept donations. we are not a government organisation. we were given complete responsibility for olympic sport in the united states and shortly thereafter paralympic sports, who given the authority to certify a national governing body. i think we now have 48 national governing bodies, nine of which are an olympic sports. we have to work hand in glove with each of those 48 or 39 to fund d bee gees their programs, not such an

easy task and candidly until 2004 i think the usoc tried to be too many things to too many people. we now have a board of directors of 16 people. we have no executive committee now it all. also focus our e mission to help paralympic athletes and athletes sustain excellence. had we get american athletes get medals around their necks. a line of sight, and what the impact of that decision is going to be. interestingly, the act also control of clusive our trademarks, these cookies are a problem. us if they t ask

could put our simple on the cookies. we have a special line of protection for our trademarks extremely ey are valuable. they saw a way to give american athletes. we don't have the same budget that other countries have. the word paralympic are all things that you cannot use except under journalistic conditions without our consent and with that consent we provide to our sponsors, and that's what drives our budget. our budget is around $200 million but in terms of our success that $200 million

really pales in comparison to the amount of our colleges and our universities. only as strong as the collegiate system today. 65% of the us olympic team in london participated in college sports. the big ten combined had 88 metals also. we ended up with 104 medals in london so you can see, and am believable contribution to the sports. third of the team, including 31 bestseller lists participated in college sports so if there is one primary message for today, it is this, like china and

russia spend billions of dollars on their athletic programs and our government has chosen not to, which by the way we have chosen to fully support. it does not compromise our position at the top of the board. the so-called non-revenue program are beginning to had 59 ar, 1981 we gymnastics programs, today there are 16. women gymnastics programs have dropped from 99 to 62 over the same timeframe. today we have 77 wrestling programs down from 146, 35 years ago, and that list goes on. about this, knows said no director has ever been fired for terminating an olympic programme.

the call to action today from the olympic and paralympic family is urgent. it goes beyond eligibility roles. i think about gwen jorgen see, is the number one ranked female athlete in the world. she ran for the badgers and earned her master's degree in accounting. she went to work for a big accounting firm. glen was well on her way to using the education as a student athlete to become a professional but she discovered the sport of triathlon. she became rookie of the year in 2010.

made the olympic team in 2012. and in 2014 she was placed first, something that no other female has done. the united states owes much of its olympic success to the collegiate institutions, programmes and institutions because we cannot expect the colleges and universities to support us from the goodness of their hearts. we have to build partnerships. we want to work with the coaches, and the donors and the directors and the conference commissioners. wants to build

partnerships and help build strong athletic departments that believe in the balance of human being and the power of sport to risk lives and indeed to make the world a better place. it is not just about team usa and whether we win or lose. i know as well as anyone and that collegiate programs play. i want to dumb it a long time ago, i played soccer, i grew up in chicago and i was a goalie. there was only one goalie at the team at the time, i thought i was pretty hot stuff it was coach called me. go. convinced me to

is arrived on campus, this a young man, tremendous athlete and to make a really long story short. when i got to dartmouth he ended up starting most of the four years and i didn't, i started one year out of the four and it had a huge impact on me because i had to reframe what i wanted to do with my life, how i looked at myself, i knew i was never going to be a professional soccer player but those four years going into having to ion and redefine what you are all about. the usoc in 1999, i to run sports

group, i ran the sports group for about eight months and then i got promoted to deputy i ecutive director and then got promoted again and i was stay, i encouraged to did stay and at the end of that search process are they picked someone else for reasons that are too long to go into now i decided not to stay. i was recovering lawyer and had practised over 20+ years the had been out of practice of law for a few years to find as tough clients again. it ended up being the best thing that could have ever happened to me. we owned six professional soccer teams and we owned staples centre and i learnt so so much.

the truth is, my experience is not unique, there are thousands of athletes that have life changing experiences, who are better people, more successful people because of their participation in college sports. it is not just football players and basketball players represent our great country, and that by the way is one of the reasons why americans love the olympic games so much because we love being americans, we love overcoming, we love seeing that american flag when we walk into our places of d work. so, being american is so much of why we get so much from the american public. are much more than about winning. it's about being the best you can be. of my greatest mentors

was john wooden and he defined success as a peace of mind that comes from knowing you did the very best that you could, and that is what the olympic games are about. it is that that makes us different from any other in the ional sport united states, but it is also that that makes us very similar to collegiate athletics. it is based on a value system body balance of mind, mind and spirit. that's why this relationship that we have with the ncaa a institution is so so important to us. what can we do to make that relationship better? since 2011 the national governing bodies

have partners with the national association of collegiate associations to create the olympic awards. it recognises colleges and universities. it was a step in the right direction. we will continue to publicly recognise the importance of our collegiate export to the success of the olympic game but need to do more. can we do endowments for olympics board coaches or scholarships. can we use the great olympic brand or the experience of our governing bodies to build revenue-generating properties with conferences and schools? and we allow colleges and universities to use their olympic identities and success to recruit athletes and coaches, and perhaps to build facilities? can our national governing bodies work with the ncaa to host conference championships and national championships in their sports? usa triathlon is already doing

this. who knows, maybe she would have been number one much sooner if we had been able to do that. can we encourage nbc to promote the university backgrounds of our olympic teams? we believe that the united states needs to host the olympic games again. we haven't hosted the summer games since 1996. what that means is there is a whole generation of americans who haven't seen the olympic games on american soil. we believe that hosting be olympic games can inspire a whole generation of athletes who will attend the collegiate institutions. that doesn't mean we have made a final decision to bid, but we are very seriously considering it. we have four great cities, boston, los angeles, san francisco, and washington.

we will make our decision probably by the end of january. maybe earlier than that. we have met one-on-one with a number of athletic directors from some of the schools that we depend upon the most. we talked about many of the ideas i just mentioned, things that we can do for them, for their schools, and for their programs, for their athletes, for their coaches. we also want to form a working group to look at opportunities that can benefit college sports across the board, and to jump start the discussion, we have a $5 million donor that is prepared to invest in the preservation of olympic sports at colleges. we need to have a conversation about the role we'd aged to play in creating a safe environment for sports. there is no agency, no commission today responsible for the safety and well-being of young athletes.

our best estimates suggest that one in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused the time they are 18. and yes, it happens in sports, if not more than in society at large. the usoc board of directors unanimously supported the establishment of a new independent entity to create and sustain safe environments for sports. the usoc is investing $5 million for a pilot program in all of our ngb's collectively. we are trying to raise an additional $15 million to get this organization off the ground. we think there are enough people and organizations who believe in us, believe what we are trying to achieve here, that we are going to get it done. this entity will have two primary functions -- education and awareness on the one hand, and for olympic sports, investigation.

one of the biggest challenges that we have is that some of our ngb's have limited budgets. with this independent entity, we will have the ability to provide the ability to provide that resource to them, so that we can do this. the usoc safe sport program will help raise awareness about misconduct, will promote open dialogue, and will provide training and resources. it is a big problem that nobody is addressing on a national level. we will try and fill that vacuum, but it is not cheap, and we would very much like to partner with as many of our college and university partners as we can. let me close by simply saying that i am grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and to tell you a little bit about the u.s. olympic committee, about team usa, and about why college sports really matter to us.

the state of college sports in this great nation is in a state of great flux. you all, much more than i, know what direction that is likely to head. but if athletes like when jorgensen -- when jorgensen are going to continue to read the benefits of college athletics, and our country will enjoy it spotted the top of the podium, both on and off the field of play, and in board rooms and availability games, we have to support all of our student athletes and the programs that support them. there are immense challenges facing colleges minister to us. we understand there is not a single college administrator in the country that was to shut down an olympic sport program. we much appreciate the opportunity. [applause]

>> you outlined the professional successes you had after not being elected to the ceo position of the usoc in 2001. what drove you to come back to the usoc after you lost that vote? >> i have to go back in time it. i joined the usoc in 1999, it was the fall of 1998 when i realized the thing i liked best was going home and mowing the lawn on friday afternoon. i get home, i would look over my shoulder, and i could see i made the world better place. it was a small piece of the world, but it made me feel really good about the fact i had done something that was tangible and had improved some state of affairs somewhere. as a lawyer, i didn't often feel that way. when i was back practicing law in colorado in 2009, and i got the phone call asking if i would be interested in coming back, it was a dream come true.

it was something i honestly never expected. i wasn't going to apply for the job. i had more or less assumed they had moved on from me. they had a lot of turnover. the more i got to see the impact of the 2004 reorganization on the usoc, the more i got to see the tremendous leadership that we get from our board of directors. we have a wonderful group of people. six people who are independent, and have no relationship to olympic sport. generally, three people elected by the national governing bodies, three people elected by active athletes. for the first time in the history of the usoc, coming to the table, trying to do what is in the best interest of the usoc and its athletes, as opposed to acting in the best interest of the constituency it happened to send them. i came back because i believe in the power of sport to make the world a better place. my lawn hadn't gotten any bigger, so i wasn't getting as much enjoyment from that as a

used to. >> one more summit personal question before we go into some steps instead of -- substantive questions. how is your life changed? >> lots of travel. it seems like a low-level to those of you who are directors of athletics. i'm an mg nester as of a year ago. the good news is, i can bring my wife. the most important change is the time i get to spend it training centers, seeing our young men and women, most of whom don't get the big dollars of professional athletes. they are there because they love competing. they really love representing their nation. it is just inspiring to be around them. >> you spoke about the importance of college boards programs. certain college athletes, specifically for ballplayers, generate millions of dollars for their schools. why shouldn't they receive a portion of that revenue? >> this is one it would have

been good to have bob here. [laughter] bob knows the answer to that question, i'm not sure that i do. we think our athletes create great value, both monetarily and in terms of the inspiration in what they do. we also know that our colleges and universities have jobs that go way yonder athletics -- way beyond athletics. i'm probably being overly noncontroversial here, but it is a couple get a question. the people who should answer that question are the people who were involved in the business of college sport. we need college sport. we need to figure this out in a way that doesn't cause us to lose college sports on the olympic side. but i don't know what the answer is to that question. obviously, those athletes create a heck of a lot of value. i'm not sure that we have adequately answer the question about why don't we give them all that money, but why haven't we done more for them.

>> if there is one thing you could change about the olympics for the twice for century, what would it be? >> that is a great question. i think the ioc's meeting in europe to talk about that question. they are talking about what changes do we want to make is a part of a project they call agenda 2020. if you look at how we select cities for the london games, rightly or wrongly, -- for the olympic games, it is different from the way business would make that decision. it's a multibillion-dollar program, a multibillion dollar value. the selection is made on whatever cities sign up to be host of the olympic games, and then there is a competition in a vote among those cities. it would be great if we could find a way to strategically make that selection in a way that helped build the olympic brand around the world.

>> the united states has not hosted an olympics since the 2002 winter olympics in salt lake city. what would it take for the ioc to a prove? >> base in our discussions with the ioc, they are very open to coming back to the united states. we have made a sincere effort to become much more active and engaged in the global olympic movement. we have tried to be at the table when decisions get made and contributions have to be made to various projects. i think the time is right for the u.s. to compete to host the olympic games. we want to make sure there is a compelling reason for the ioc to look at our bed and say that will make the world better. it will make the city that hosts

the games better. it is so important that we not spend huge amounts of money that wouldn't otherwise be spent on the olympic games. it is one thing to spend it $10 billion on every structure, if you were going to spend $10 billion on infrastructure because it's in the city's best interest. because they need a new railroad, new streets, things like that. but we can't do is put ourselves in a situation with the citizens of any city are paying to host an event, and paying expenses that wouldn't otherwise be spent on their city anyways. for us, one of the greatest challenges is how do we make it affordable? and we make it a value-added proposition for the citizens of whichever city will host? >> here we are in washington d.c., and we have a few

questions related to washington. what do you think of the d.c. 2024 bid? >> i think russ ramsey is doing a great job. i think this is an iconic american city, a city that represents our nation. i think our other three cities are equally as good. [laughter] >> you have touched on this in your remarks to an earlier question. why should d.c. residents want and pay for the 2014 olympics? >> i think the olympic games are especially important to us now, as we as a nation seem especially divided. i think the olympic games across all religious lines, all political lines, all economic lines. they are about coming together to do something other than focus on your disagreements.

it is something that focuses everybody's attention on what we have in common, as opposed to what makes us different. there is healthy competition, but is in the spirit of all of us, every country, every 204 countries that comes to compete, being the very best we can be and moving forward after that competition. i think the great benefit for any city hosting the games is that they can be a part, again come of making the world a better place. be a part of something that is much bigger than just a sport, titian or broadcast event. >> what are we doing to set ourselves apart as olympic hosts, compared to other countries? >> i think it is too early to be able to answer that one. we don't know if we are going to submit a bid to host 2024. we don't know who we will be competing against.

we are out of phase now where we are just evaluating if this is the right thing for the united states, and if so, who should our bid city partner b. for us, i think one of the things that any city we would pick would offer is some reliability. access to great technology, access to great infrastructure. i think the united states has historically done a fantastic job of hosting the games. salt lake city, los angeles, lake placid, we have a rich history of doing it well. i think the ioc would look at the united states and feel comfortable that we would be able to do it in a way that would create a great experience for the fans, the athletes, for the guests, for the sponsors. >> the recent article in the atlantic monthly asked what if democracies refused to pay for the olympic games again? this was a response to the lack of enthusiasm in the parts of western nations to host the 2022 winter limits.

can you comment on this, and what the ioc can do to encourage bids? >> that's a fantastic question. if a democracy were to spend as much as sochi spent on the winter living names, i think it would be a problem. we, as a democracy, have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible to our citizens. if we can't look at a pll for the olympic games that doesn't have an adverse effect on whatever city is hosting, we will make the decision not to host. when russia spends $51 billion, that sends a message that the games are expensive. but you have to remember, most of that was for bridges and roads and railroads, and venues that didn't exist. in most cases, associated with the united states bid, or a bid

from a lot of other nations, those kind of expenditures won't be necessary. i think the ioc is headed in the right direction. by asking to focus everyone's attention to focus on the facts that it cost three or $4 billion, plus whatever you need in the way of infrastructure that is otherwise good for your city. >> some of our questionnaires anticipated the flow of your comments. this is coming along in the order i wanted to make this a good discussion. many countries that the u.s. competes against receive direct and generous support from their governments. the united states does not. should the united states olympic committee received government funding?

>> i think as time goes on, we are going to have to increase the amount of resources that we can make available to our athletes if we are going to stay competitive with china, russia, and others. i'm not at all convinced that the best route to that is government support. when i started in 2010, we were raising less than $1 million a year in major gift philanthropy. this year, we should be over $20 million in gross major gift philanthropy. that is the opportunity for us. we have to figure out a way to make americans realize that we are the only developed nation in the world that isn't funded by its government. if most americans realize that, we could substantially increase not only the major gift philanthropy, but gifts from americans who are able to give $25, to $100. that's the direction we want to go. we are not considering approaching the government to change the rule that has been in place.

it is hard to say that we should. we won accounts in every summer games since 1996. we are ok now. but we need to keep laser focused on how we increased those resources, and we are not for the time being going to the government. >> what do you think of the balance between professional and amature athletes in the olympics? should baseball be an olympic sport? >> the challenge that the ioc faced was that they wanted the athletes competing in the liver games to be the best athletes in the world. it doesn't make much sense, the value will be affected if the best athletes aren't competing.

i understand where the ioc is on baseball, because the best players in the world are more focused on winning a world series title in they are unwitting american metal. with that said, i think it is a great tragedy that women's softball that doesn't have a world series is not in the olympic games. we've been working to support women's softball in getting into the olympic games. the ioc is not sure that is the best move. they don't want to admin sports without women's sports, women's sports without men's sports. from the united states alone the committee standpoint, we would like to see women's softball in the games. they don't have the world series. they don't have that premier championship that young women athletes can aspire to after their ncaa championships. i think that is a great question, but i think the ioc

has decided for the time being they want the best athletes in the world coming to the olympic games, not something else. in basal, that wouldn't happened. >> a follow-up question. it points out you have been involved in the rescue of women's softball and wrestling as olympic sports. wrestling made it, softball did not. why do you think the olympics committee doesn't want to consider softball, and what are your thoughts about this? i realize you just touched on that, you may want to elaborate. >> i think the ioc does want to consider softball. in that context, they can only add one sport. they had to pick between wrestling and softball. and that was a difficult choice. i played squash for a long time. i would love to seize wash in the games. i would love to see women's softball. i can imagine the games without wrestling. they need to ask themselves what can we do to continue to make the olympic games relevant to younger audiences.

if you look at what happened in the winter games, they did a beautiful job when they added snowboarding. the ratings went up, interest went up, snowboarding is a big part of the winter will let the games now. we need -- winter olympic games now. how do we get skateboarding in? there are kids all over the world were doing this. if we want to connect with the under generations, we have to find ways that the sports they are active in other sports that will be competed in the olympic games. >> after all the controversy over domestic violence and other issues plaguing the nfl, you spoke out last month about the domestic charges filed against hope solo, the u.s. soccer goalkeeper. still, she is on the team at no punishment levied against her as she awaits trial.

also, olympic swimmer michael phelps has pleaded guilty to dui and is suspended. other any specific rules about punishing olympians charged with a crime? do you see a culture shift in the sports world would it comes to addressing violent behavior against athletes? >> let me answer your last question first. i do see a culture shift. i do think, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem acceptable just to say wait and see what happens in the trial. there seems to be more and more pressure on sports to take action when an athlete is charged with a behavior as opposed to when an athlete is actually found to have committed the behavior. you probably know better than i do what is driving that. but i know that a lot of our governing bodies are feeling the pressure because in all truth, so many of them aren't equipped to do meaningful investigations

when an allegation of misconduct is made. and that's one of the reasons the safe sport initiative is so important, even though it only covers one small slice of abuse. it covers a really important part of abuse. one that needs to be addressed. we do need to bring that resource to bear. on the hope solo situation, and the michael phelps situation, both of those cases are pending. it would be an appropriate for us to comments on what may have happened, or what should happen until we have a version of the facts that either has been determined by a third party, or that all the parties have acknowledged are the case. >> do you expect morals clauses in future contracts with athletes, in the wake of michael phelps's recent transgressions? >> this is my recovering lawyer self coming out. i know morals clauses have been a part of those contracts for a long time. we have a code of conduct that

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

we really haven't had any significant issues in the last few games. i hope we can keep doing that. >> how often does your law background come into play when promoting olympic games or being ceo of the u.s. olympic committee? >> i have three kids, all of whom are either just out of college or in college. when you talk about law school, when i tell them is -- i think law school is tremendous. it teaches you critical thinking skills that are valuable to you throughout your life. i use those skills, that way of thinking in everything that i do. being a lawyer is a different question than being able to take advantage of the great training that you get in law school.

i am grateful for that training. 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 enforcing that than the rest of the world? >> i think our athletes get tested more, and more stringently than any other athletes in the world. they are certainly among the top 1% of athletes in the world. we externalized our drug testing. it was created in or around the year 2000. the usoc used to do its own drug testing and adjudication. what we realize that we were the fox guarding the hen house. our job was to win medals. we are also responsible for catching and adjudication dopers, that is a conflict of interest. we moved it outside of our $2 million budget, more than 3.5 million of that goes to support the anti-doping agency. we have one of the strongest anti-doping agencies in the world.

sport is not drug-free, by any means. the cheaters have an advantage, because they are thinking of new ways to cheat for we can think of new ways to test them for cheating. we have to continue to invest. we have to continue to do research. it is very important to us come in a context where we are not just about the outcome. we are not just about winning or losing. we've a value system that underlies everything we try to sell to sponsors, broadcast partners, and donors. if we don't invest in that, it will have a huge impact on the brand long-term. >> the 2022 world cup is being hosted in one of the hottest regions on earth, the middle east. causing concerns over the health of both the athletes, and construction workers building venues. how do you foresee global sporting events like the olympics being affected by mobile climate change in extreme weather conditions?

>> i think it is fantastic that we have a number of countries who are rising up and wanting to invest their substantial resources in sport. i think that is a wonderful thing. i think we have to rely on the ioc and the international sport federations to make sure those investments are appropriate. hopefully, through the oversight of the ioc and the international federations, when competitions are held in places that are hot, it won't be at the expense of our athletes. that is critically important. we are very supportive of the arrival and departing of places like qatar. we are looking to the ioc and international federations to make sure that those competitions are held under conditions and circumstances that promote athletics, as opposed to the opposite.

>> a couple of marketing questions. how has new media effected the marketing of the the olympic movement? >> the audience people are striving to connect with is not people my age. i think the average viewer for the sochi olympics was 50 years plus the average age. the question for nbc and others is how we make the olympics relevance to those younger audiences. the answer is digital media. social media. we have made an investment, we are very engaged with facebook we are very engaged with facebook and twitter. patrick on facebook, does not let me for very good reasons.

but we have to be very relevant in that space, and i think i know it is a priority for nbc. vancouver,me out of and they found that people watching on digital media actually enhance their viewership, and it actually increased their numbers. so nbc is involved in this proposition as well. >> we are the press club of course. has traditionally been a television only event. streaming on the internet is accelerating. what will be the media events in the future? think it is going to be incumbent on us and incumbent on nbc to have the widest possible mix at the end of the day, people are accessing it through different platforms. they will want to exploit their

rights across all platforms, so personally, i am going to continue to watch on television, but my three children will not. wewant to make sure that have the widest possible actions of cross all platforms. you think social media engagements will boost bids for future olympic events? >> i think one of the most important factors is what kind of support the olympic leadership has in its cities. the support of young people, they are not going to get it in the traditional ways. a lot of it is going to be driven by social media. so all four of the big cities are thinking through the social media plan and what it is going to be. that social media plan is going to have a great deal to do with their leadership and the city really wants to host the game

and the united states, so it is going to have an extremely important impact on our assessment on public support that each of these cities have -- has. >> when you walk into your office, what is your main goal for the day? >> this is changed since i first 1999, iworking in literally first started working three days after the 1999 salt lake city olympic games. in 2010,when i started it was all about vancouver for the first two weeks, and i started about a week before the vancouver games. glorioussly had success there, but when i got back, we were facing some very c, ands issues with the io

we began trying to rebuild those international relationships. aw, it feels like we have run fair and stable cores, we are going in the right direction, and we have the opportunity to be more opportunistic and to a fair and to put our finger in the dike, and we are trying to figure how we can create more resources for our athletes. about one half of the national team athletes in the united states. there are young men and women been good enough to be on the national sports team who are not receiving support from us, and the athletes who receive support from us get less than $2000 a month from us, so it really is not enough to live on. how can we be creative in enhancing the resources available to our athletes so we

can fund all of the national team members? >> we are leading up to the conclusion of this very sessionive q&a preceding euro marks, so a general question, what are the major priorities for the u.s. olympic committees through 2020, and how is the administration tackling them? would say we have a handful of overriding priorities. one of them is to continue to build out our major gifts program. statesn the united olympic and paralympic foundation, and we are raising $20 million a year now through at $50and we should be million plus in some point at the future, and we should begin washing that out. that is a priority. finding a way that we can host the old big games on u.s. soil as a priority, we are not going to do it and it does not make

economic sense, that we are going to work really, really hard to make sure that it makes economic sense. a priority for us. we have got to get this done, we have got to get this money, and we have to launch this pilot program. careers and education, the transitioning of our athletes' careers. so many of them leave the system in their 20's or their mid-20's and they want to get involved with the rest of their lives. many of them wonder what they are going to do after they creatingand so we are rogue rams for them where they creatingng at -- programs for them where they are looking at what to do with the rest of their lives and we think it will help them immensely. thank you so much.

we are almost out of time, before asking the last question, we have a few housekeeping things that we need to remember. i would like to remind you that we have an upcoming lunch on november the second with robert mcdonald, the head of -- robert ofonnell, the secretary this is light and enough that you can actually carry this and take it around the world, so we want to give this to you from the national press club. >> thank you very much. [applause] and for our last question, what is your favorite olympic sport and why? , i have so many.

let me tell you about some great olympic moments. my teens get a little angry with father derek redman's came out to me during the barcelona games, and he pulled a hamstring about 100 euros to go, and his dad came out of the stand and helped him across the finish line. it is moments like that that it makes you realize that it is not the winning, it is not trying at really, really matters. you think about that, and you think about lake placid in 1980 and you think about those young men that one that gold medal extraordinary circumstances, and you think of carl lewis, there are so many, many things that cause me 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, and i get to see them do what they do. they're very humble and they are

not doing anything but possessing a desire to be the best that they can be. can't thank you all enough for being here, and it is a real pleasure. thank you. [applause] thank you all for coming today, i would also like to thank the national press club staff for helping to organize and facilitate today's of event. here is a final reminder that you can find more information on our website, and if you would like a copy of today's program, please check out our website at press.org. thank you, we are adjourned. [applause]

>> more now from the big 12 for him from the national press club. this includes athletic directors and national sports journalists. this is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon everybody, this is the second in a series of forums on college athletics organized by the big 12 conference, i am jimmy roberts at the mbc sports group, thank you for joining us today here in washington dc, and online, and on c-span as well. the numbers in college sports are staggering. that could is a leap we are talking in terms of points

yards gained, at a could also include participation and money. according to filings with the department of education, from the year 2011, college sports combined to generate more than 12.6 billion dollars. last year, the university of texas took in more than one quarter, espn is paying billions of dollars in year two play the college football layoff system for the next 12 years. time warners is on paidbs, and they played -- $12.1 billion. most schools operate in the red. the star player on the championship team that won the

men's bascom alternative last year said something must be wrong. so where does the money go? not everyone agrees that the distribution has been wise or equitable. here to helping today to parse the issue is a number of men involved in sports and how they are run. is the project reporter for usa today specializing in enterprise stories and investigation, he is also dedicated a considerable amount of his time to compiling newspapers and college sports compensation and finance into a database. patrick sandusky is the chief affairsation and public officer for the united states olympic committee, he is also a former college athlete, and an offensive lineman from the college of illinois -- university of illinois.

guest is steve patterson from the athletic director at the university of texas who is previously from the same position at arizona state. he was once general manager at the houston rockets and the portland trailblazers with the mba. -- nba. reportingest had his award him a pulitzer prize on high school athletes. commissioner had planned to be here today but he is homework liberated from surgery, and we wish him all the best. all of the opinions expressed here today do not represent the organizations within they are

associated. this is a time of tremendous up evil in sports. the national labor relations board ruled that football players should be allowed to form a union. the ncaa was found in august to o'bannon wrong with one day after the big five broke away from the ncaa. the common theme in all of these items is money. so why don't we start right there. i want to start with the two men in charge of overseeing programs at universities. steve?we start with you >> i don't know that he has changed all that much over the years. there have been movements to

regulate that going back more than 100 years their greater facilities biggerstaff than we have had in the past, we want to provide the best student services that we have and that takes a lot of resources. to generate those resources you have to have media contracts, sell a lot of tickets, and one of merchandise, and all of the other things that provide those revenues to provide those services. >> if you look at it from the evolution of college athletics, from the time of ncaa, is 22 years. if you think about the popularity of football today,

used to have a limited scholarships back in the day. then it went to 110, 95, and today it is 85. the rise of florida state, oregon, baylor, and today, the popularity of college athletics, football in particular, is second to none. yet we are running a business based on people's passion, that says that we must have two revenue streams to support 23 sports based on your student population. college has changed drastically. how do we fund college athletics has changed, and the idea that we -- we are put in the position today, what are we providing for our student athletes? it is no longer the handshake. it is beyond the handshake. there is tremendous pressure to our being put forth.

the demands of winning, the demands of keeping her coach, the man's of providing opportunities for young people are ever greater. we always have to see it evolving. >> i guess what i really meant was given what has happened within the last year, specifically within the last few months, the prospect of change. do you foresee business being done any differently, given the possibility that your model may change? >> that is a different question. yes. no question. one thing you know about college athletics is that it is ever-changing. no doubt about it. when you start to think about the ramifications of the o'bannon case and the stipend that was put toward, that was going to put tremendous pressure on college athletes, because for us at tcu, getting into the big 12 conference has been great, but our largest donor has been

the institution. this newfound money actually goes back to the university, so that these programs can become truly self-sufficient. i look at it and i say we are , part parcel of an institution. the success of our athletic program and the rise of tcu going to the rose bowl, we're up to 20,000 for the same 1600 spots. how does that affect title ix? we have not even talked about that. you can't say that we are only going to provide opportunity for two sports. hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? really? i have two daughters that are going to say pay the fiber. piper.

how do we do that? >> steve, you have spent a considerable amount of time covering college sports. the numbers. how do you see the cost of attendance changing and affecting the way colleges and universities in their athletic departments do business? >> and will be different for how schools managed to do this. whether or not there will be this continuing effort to try to raise more money and generate more money through commercial enterprises, or whether or not this is going to be the kind of thing that perhaps better justifies institutional involvement in supporting college athletic programs. the trend has been making athletic programs self-sufficient, and this is almost creating a perpetual motion machine. it has resulted in increased pressure to increase revenue, which is in turn making so much revenue generated that the general public, people who are lawyers, judges, are looking at

this and going wow, there is so much money generated here that something more needs to be done for the athletes. the athletes are entitled for compensation for the way they are participating in the generation of that money. so it creates some interesting questions as to how colleges want to deal with this, and what impact of that will be. also, whether we continued to further perpetuate this. >> patrick, chris mention the impact on title ix. scott was in here earlier, speaking about olympic sports, and i guess you could ask about what is going to become of olympic sports, the nonrevenue sports. >> title ix was the greatest thing to happen to college athletics, and to the united states olympic team.

if you go back and look at the women's games in the london games, they would have finished third in the medal count just by the women alone. we are benefited immensely by our culture of inclusion of women in sport and i dare safe we are not the best culture of inclusion of women in sport, i do not think that anybody can say they are better than us. title ix has been fantastic for us. but there is a harsh reality. the stresses and finances of an unplugged program could come under. no one has ever lost their job because of the poor performance of their olympic sport program. people pay attention to basketball, to football, and the metrics i which they get their donors and fanned raising done, and their sponsorships and the tv contracts. for us, there are a lot of implications of the event have negatively impacted supporting

programs. we have seen this even before we have got to the point of increasing the cost for the universities for their student at leeds. you look at how many wrestling programs around the entry have shrunk over the years. the number of domestic programs that have shrunk to get that balance. make no doubt about it that the olympic sport programs are more under threat than they have ever been. >> the topic of this panel is supposed to be about money. where does this money go? for gurley was suspended allegedly selling his autograph and should a player real loud to sell his own like this -- should a player be allowed to sell his own likeness? >> that is a great question.

if you have good through recruiting, you get glimpses of the there is a black market in college football. you basically have basketball fueled by boosters. you have a billion dollar business dedicated unfree labor, and this is to fuel the billion dollar beast. that said, i think everyone is happy with the way it is working out right now, the black market existing in the shadows as it does. if you start to allow people to use their likeness to make money, which conceptually is very easy -- he should be able to make money off of his autograph -- it opens onto

pandora's box. how much, where does it go? when you sign with them, you can automatically get this much. so many unintended consequences of those who have not sat on the baseline and watched how the world works. they do not know how the reality is. what university could afford -- it will become a bottleneck competition. everyone is looking for an average everywhere i go. in termsloophole opens of the autographs and in terms of the likeness stuff in the , reality of the application of the it could get very tricky.

we see these autographed guys who look like you're are scum of the earth guys trying to make money off of kids. it would open up a lot of really scary doors. it is something that i think you get to full cost of attendance, once you go past that marker, it gets really complicated. >> this very complicated injunction behind the o'bannon decision, i think there is some sensitivity behind that. that is what makes the list next round of lawsuits, the ones involving martin jenkins, the player that is representative by jeff kessler, these big cases that could cost the school a lot of money in damages through

retroactive deferential between cost of attendance and grant aid, and what the future would be with the ability of athlete to get, then this becomes a really big deal. i think that is why the judge was trying to create some link that was similar in between. it is a very difficult issue to balance. the lawyers that litigate that case even now are trying to decipher what the judgment in certain ways in the way the ruling and injunction were set up. >> steve patterson, how do we figure out what the cost of attendance is? do that? have seen schools, we

it described on every count, it might be as much as $4000 or more per year. the ones who lives in same saint do not have the staying numbers -- state do not have the same numbers. at the end of the day there is this misperception that the labor is free in college athletics. that is not accurate and if you're a full ride football player at the university of texas, the benefit you get for room, board, books, tuition, training, and medical, it is $69,000 a year. that is tax-free. so yes, the taxes on that that , put you at the top third of the household incomes of the united states. if you're a basketball player it is $77,000 a year. i do not think that student athletes are being taken advantage of when they are in the top third or quartile of household incomes in the united states. that is what we really need to be talking about. one of the things i found

whether things that you did not mention. that includes tutoring, networking, alumni, things that benefited me in my career. i was a backup on a really bad team. i had to find something to do. i realized that quite quickly. but the program itself was there for you to succeed, to have the tutors, to have the individual specialization. that is a network i still rely on today, nearly 20 years later, it is nearly hard to quantify some of those costs as a former athlete who by looking at me you can tell i never went to bed hungry. you really get an opportunity to really do more than just playing football. an enhanced student

opportunity beyond what the , normal student gets, but it really is wonderful. >> i will back his point on this. i did a study several years ago, attry to empirically look the value of the men's basketball scholarship. without a figure closer to $120,000 a year when you look at all of the things that he pours in. there are other things that have actual real value that you can tally up, like free admission to games, and other things that people do not think about. >> 6:00 a.m. practices during spring break? [laughter] i would take that out. >> you know this way better than i do but in terms of the demands , that are placed on the athletes, i think that is where

the friction begins to come in. some of the things we heard in the o'bannon case, and that testimony of what the athletes do, what they feel they have to do, what they are expected to do, and the nature of that trade-off. how all of the works in the nature of the pressures and demands that are placed on the athletes in addition to the amount of money that is being generated based on what they are doing. >> i agree with steve paterson, and i let him down the road by saying free labor. i see that they go to bed hungry narrative is one of the all-time false narrative that could ever be eventuated in the history of college.

if you really parrot on the math of these guys, there is no way, if he is going to bed hungry, that is his own fault. i've spent a week behind the scenes at mississippi state, and let it tell you i gained five pounds being in their building. these guys come off the field and may have shakes specifically made to their flavor taste, weight gain, weight loss and they go into the arms will be there is a snack bar. that headline became a toxic thing. these athletes should be fed, if there's one thing they should never limit it is feeding athletes, it is in of them with medicare. it is a great thing for everybody. i do not think you will get anyone around sports to disagree, it is a misuse of what

they are giving. >> i think this narrative, that said, probably has something to do with it. the establishment is making millions and millions of dollars. in essence, there are kids who come for nothing and have their noses pressed up against the window and saying where's mine. is that fair? >> you have to say -- outside of the g.i. bill, college athletics provides the largest need case

i came from a children's home in taos new mexico. my all it was through sport. the second year they dropped track and field, but luckily santa barbara got my vision. last year we had 85 kids graduate from texas christian university. only one went pro. think about all those other kids were good to go out and do phenomenal things, but we focus on one who did not have enough munchies. if you knew what we give them, holy cow, there is no way he is starving. you're giving him a full ride to go to school. to make a decision. a lot of time those kids are first-generation kids, never happened opportunity to do

something. he got done playing in four, but we continue their education until they earn their degree. we lost our voice, we look at all of this money over here, and we look at the 523 campus athletes and what they are doing throughout their lives, and that is part of the problem. against the window, and you say you are getting a raw deal, they say no, sir. they say i cannot thank you enough. >> you guys have the greatest renown for doing things that create most of the revenue that support a lot of the other athletes.

in some cases, they are also guys who are 50 years, it results in tough circumstances for these guys whether it is medical, whether or not they did not give an indication that enable them to get jobs. we did a story four years ago that talked about guys who talk to us about getting degrees the result in them not being qualified to take off to do something meaningful in their lives. i understand on a broader basis that there are a lot of people who are in sports outside of

football and basketball who would tell you this is the greatest thing. >> my job is to tell you it is half full. >> i do nothing necessarily the phone to ask questions of the glass is half full. >> i am a sociology major. the way i grew up, it was a phenomenal major for me. it was a criminal justice major, social scientice, there is no major you can hide in. i still look at that as an opportunity for that one individual to leave their place and go to school and get whatever degree it may be. are they better off than where they were? that is a key question. are they better off than where they were, and can become a productive member of society?

27%-28% has a college degree in the country. >> your average lifetimes earnings are $1 million more. >> i think it is somewhere between the two points. i remember being an offensive lineman, and he asked us what our majors are were going to be. i said i was going to major in english, and he said are you sure you got that right? i said yes, and he said the new better not get any bad grades this semester. there were those guys that mail -- nailed it in academically, without a doubt. and then there were guys who got zero point grade averages and got kicked out of school.

you were given the opportunity, and there are a lot of reasons why or why not choose or do not choose. i do think that while that can happen, there's also opportunity for the athletes as well. >> from an academic piece, we're just seeing the competitiveness of american colleges and universities a mile high and the senior class that is graduating now, one third of them would not even get in as freshmen now. the football is on a plane here and here, and that is why you're seeing the stuff at notre dame. a lot of places have these million dollars, and if you want to be competitive in major

football you need to get the kids who barely qualified. that is going to create a lot more situations than we have seen now at institutions that are actually educating the kids. the places that do have an academic soul. you will see the pressure, kids cheat, kids do different things because that is inherent to the situation. those inherent pressures are one of the problems that is arising, that we kind of see on the bottom line when wide receiver x gets -- >> you do not see those who major in dance go to school for dance. if you go to school for football, they wonder why you're

going for organizational studies. you're advocating for them to be part of the student experience. you're not saying that this should not be part of your routine, this should not be part of you developing as a young woman or young man. i give them a lot of credit for that for not just doing with classes altogether -- doing away with classes altogether. >> it is easy to have the discussion that followed around the left and 1% of student athletes that could go on to process. even then there is a career for less than four years. the reality is even in a place that is successful that the university of texas has been, one of the top three baseball programs in the country with

less than one that does on to play. we average three or four that gets a chance to be on the nfl roster. out of the 500 plus kids on campus, there may be three or four or five that go on to play in the pros. our job is to manage outcomes. folks come in with all kinds of gpas and sat's scores. we have minimums now. core courses required. one thing we do not talk about either problems in education leading up to college. english and math skills. we are like in the 20's compared to the rest of the countries. not doing a great job there. you are right, as sat and gpa

scores go up, i could not get in today. i could not get into the. that is what is going on at universities all over america. >> how do you manage that? what do you do as administrators? >> we make sure we provide -- hire the right kind of people that can provide services to student athletes. we make sure we have one-on-one support. we make sure we manage to get through it and stay on track on time. we provide services for them to come back if they do not graduate on time but are a baseball player and want to make it after the third year. we pay for them to come back and

finish their career. about a dozen came back. we make sure if they get injured we provide medical services for them up to two years after they lead to make sure they are healthy. we provide these to make sure we managed this effectively. >> you left out matthew mcconaughey. >> the reality is we laughed about someone like matthew mcconaughey. often times much more important that someone has a chance to meet someone like brent macomb, a great entrepreneur and can help kids get a job and start their career and go on and foster their career as you go forward. you get those kinds of contexts into open move on with the career. >> looks like something that was -- you wanted to add. >> let me ask a question, do we need the ncaa? >> we need something. it has always amused me that these schools would break away.

inevitably there will will be some type of a structure. this is geared around the idea of everyone trying to keep everyone else from cheating or doing something to get an advantage over someone else. whether it is under the ncaa office or other entity we have not thought the name of, seems there will inevitably be some kind of underlying governments, something to hold the enterprise together. >> more and more autonomy. >> the federal government. >> i understand. we have done a poor job. we are the ncaa. they have done a great job in terms of academic reform, reliance reform.

really started out as safety. the injuries that came up. the things that have happened, we have needed them and there have been great things that they have done a poor job of talking about why we need it and what they do for us. we make them up. our leadership is on the board of directors. they are a necessity. conferences really took power when the tv contracts broke up in 1983. eligibility and compliance as part of it. that is it. conferences have taken over. the board was taken over way back when. now you have two different entities.

you have the and see two a on the site. they are still governed by us as members. today we are at the economic model, which is big numbers. if we had been back in 1985, they talk about adding cost of attendance to the membership. full cost of attendance. the membership could not agree because of the time the bodies, division ii. our division ii and division i at the time. the same boat and legislative power that the usc had. two different schools. that does not even make sense in they could not agree on it now. today we can do that. >> that seems like the perfect opportunity to transition into a

discussion about the big five and new model. the college football national championship, i mentioned that before. i am not sure i have the number of right. estimated $600 million per year. how is going forward with this big five model, how will that affect the economics with big pieces like this television contract for the football playoffs and march madness? what will the world look like for your schools and perhaps schools like the one you used to work for. >> think about this, texas christian university, writes? five conferences in 16 years. we started out with southwest conference. we did everything we could to

get back into the top 12. that was the goal. we had a perfect storm. we hired a chance learned that is a vision second to none. our campus has grown and back to a place where we are today where we wanted to be and we are in. that is fantastic. it is daunting. i thought once we got it and would be a call motion. . i understood where they were going. our faculty wants to be harvard -- harvested monday through friday. texas christian university sunday. i suffer from adult add. think about that. you are running a business based on people's passion.

it is crazy. >> what do you say to a school like fresno state that has a highly competitive football program. >> they are not. >> for the next tranche of school, our revenues went up a little less. for those schools, and went up five times. it has went up a little less than twice. for the next five, the tv revenue went up five time. they actually caught up from where they were before. when you look at it, the percentage is less. takes a lot less money. that may or may not be a valid way of looking at it. i am not disputing there is more money there for everybody.

the impact of that and how much more there is outside for those of the instant -- or those institutions in taupo schools make up that cap i think will be an interesting question, and what does that result in for what college athletics look like as a result of that you go will they be allowed to tailor the program in order to do certain things. this is what was touched on earlier. how will the money be allocated and what will be the impact on the athletic programs? >> for us, all of the distributions from the big 12 and ncaa are 22% of the revenue. the rest we generate ourselves on campus.

if you look at the relative allocations, total dollars, about twice as much. the reality is if you look at where eyeballs are generated, top five conferences. not on the next five or the ones thereafter. i think they cut a good deal. they are better off today than they were before. >> i think the cap has always been there. -- gap has always been there. this branding has perpetuated the perception. the financial cap has always been huge. while i do have empathy because they will have to fight that they are high have not, they were have not two years ago but just not white to find. they also have if you go back and extrapolate out, a couple would have gotten in.

you would have gotten in one year at tcu. you finished the top four. >> three or four times. what i am saying is i think they have done a poor job for the playoffs of letting people know if boise is 13-0 and they are that good, they can still get in. i will not say they doubled dogs, but the whole point is like their lot in life is pretty similar. what they are fighting for is perception. i agree with steve that you can say five times as much and all that. easy to be cynical but at the end of the day, they are about where they were. >> it is going to get more difficult over time for the cap to be overcome. the gap occurring now between texas budgeting and other schools in division i, it is

every year that gap goes wider and wider. does that mean it is impossible to compete on any level? maybe yes, maybe no. there are teams in baseball and other sports that have risen up to do cool things. i happen to think, and there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of businessmen. those conferences at the moment are under leveraged. companies like ing are wagering a lot of money that the businesses are under leveraged. they are paying b-schools a lot of money thinking they will be able to commercially recoup that and get even more money. how does that cycle continued to go and what will be the impact

is a really interesting question as to where all of this goes. >> a unique perspective in terms of where we were and economics. >> where would you rather be? >> deemed just told you how great life is that fresno state. -- steve just told you. >> you look up from this perspective, is economic when i was in the conference. things were happening. the place where we are at today, one is perception. two is the big boys. i was the new york yankees. i have the biggest budget. today i am in the big 12.

i have the lowest budget. 100 thousand seat stadium. rolling and 45,000. the economics are still that. we're are in a position now where we wanted to be in the big 12. the best and biggest conference in our region. we have been playing texas since 1900. we lost last week. the idea is we have been playing the schools for a long time. when the conference shifts, we are not playing regional drawls. the television has determined these five conferences drive all of the traffic. think about that. a david and goliath. in terms of every given saturday. look at the ratings for television and who is driving the traffic. if you are a school running an athletic program based on people's passion.

wanting to do what is right for your institution. what we wanted for the president and student body, everyone wanted us where we wanted to be but i can look back and say wait a minute. this has been going on. there are only two schools that made it. us and utah. that is it. an interesting dynamic when you think about our brother in the room, where would you rather be? everyone would want to be in the big 12. >> really comes down to the constituents deciding how much they want to invest. it could be from school, alumni, other donors, the student body, businesses. northwestern is not a big school, tcu is not a big school.

we will have a heckuva battle on thanksgiving. i do not know who is going to win. if the schools want to create an environment over who was going to invest in athletics because they perceived value to the university, they can make that investment. sit on the outside and criticize the system. plenty of schools have made a conscious decision not to invest. some of the most successful universities in the country. the ivy league will not blow away. chicago has not disappeared. they are great universities. >> what does the future look like for the schools that choose not to make the investments? >> i do not think they will be in position to take advantage of the eyeballs chris is talking about.

>> that is like a chicken and egg kind of argument. i am prepared to make the investment if you let me into the big 12 and i get more tv money. in the meantime, how am i supposed to make that happen? do i run up student fees. do we take institutional money and drive more of that? those are the kinds of questions that these kinds of schools are having to start to grapple with. are you going to ask the government of the state. i look at hawaii entryways that is an outlier program, but that is facing unbelievably difficult choices. there are state legislators in the state who upheld the solution believing that the state government should help support.

you can debate on a public-policy level or whether that is a good investment for the state of hawaii but there are lot of these decisions that get made that create financial situations for people who do not have a say in it and are on a student fee basis, whether or not the fee structure for university for students ought to be driven by those considerations. i think that raises legitimate questions. >> i think, of course, tcu wanted to get back into the big 12 where your roots are from. we beat northwestern earlier this year so we can trade notes for thanksgiving. if you look at my school, they left the maac and went on to think they would do bigger and better things. at that point they went independent. they travel to the big west and many places.

they came back to realize it was a perfect fit. they wanted to focus on being a part of the midterm -- midtier conference. one of the downsides is they do not have the downside program. texas does or texas christian does. they did feel comfortable that that was where they wanted to be as a school. they have been pretty successful in terms of winning football games and being part of university. i do not know is every school is trying to be in or out. >> i was at rice university from

2006-2009. i remember being interviewed. my fifth anniversary at tcu. i was at the board room and asked two questions. can he raise money for a football stadium and get us into a bcs conference? board of trustees and chancellor. why do you want to do that? you in this room will build a football stadium. no debt. donors decide this is what we will do. this is just my story. our story. we have six people who gave us $15 million each. a lot of nickels and dimes.

the idea is this is waived before the big 12. this is the ambition of what we needed to do. this was awe-inspiring to have a chancellor and board with this audacious goal that working there was fantastic but to have donors say this is what we want to do. not knowing the light at the end of the tunnel. that whole thing went out. same thing with up brand-new basketball arena. donor funds. one thing the chancellor has challenged the donors, the athletic program will not be an encumbrance on the institution for debt. we will go raise the money. that has been fantastic. the raised level.

we're more than athletic program but a great institution. that was the goal. that was the university. our culture decided that was good enough. >> i think it is great and speaks well to the university and speaks well to your ability to convince the people to donate, but you look at a school like university of california which has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into their facilities and some of that was seismically retrofit of football stadium over an earthquake fault. that is a different setup than what you are talking about. the california athletic department has a model that works for now but if it does not and something craters, where is the money coming from?

is that money coming from the state or students? what impact will that have on the bond rating for the university and the downstream impact of that on students that they are having to do all that. if you look down the road, those are the kinds of questions that you guys are having to deal with and students are to some extent have a voice and to some extent upon them. >> the department of education says you cannot do that any longer. it is now a big-ticket that says -- that replaced what used to be

called bed tax that everybody had to pay. we actually wound up with better revenues, more students buying them and a better product for students because we asked them. it is not fair to say you are imposing something on the student body. their board of regents fit. very short timeframe and have to go fix it now. out of the 300 million they spent, 175 million cost them know revenue and no improvement in the customer experience. this could have been a different symptoms. we will go play where the raiders play. we will not have football in a more. they made the decision to keep it or it was. that is their decision. >> i am not disagreeing that is their decision. there are situations where

students have a very moderate or small voice for whether they see increases. >> i think you are misinformed on that. >> that is not true. there are fee structures where they are decided on by the board, a governing board. and maybe student representatives on the board but that will be one vote. there are different vehicles for the student to do things. plenty of instances where these kinds of fee increase have occurred. you cannot canvas 75,000 students and make a decision about what you will do.

>> just from our perspective it will make a difference. i cannot speak or every institution. we have chosen to be raked in all endeavors. if you look at recurring a fact, and i use this all the time, and we will recruit the great chemistry students, we can use 1950 funds and burners, you have to evolve and recruit and at tcu we are trying to compete with texas, harvard, yale, princeton for the finest students in the country to come. u.s. news and world report ranking where johnny is going to go to school. we were not ranked academically. today we are ranked 72nd in the country and we are recruiting the finest to come to our campus. you have to invest in.

as we do not talk about that part of the business. we are between two and three weeks of the university budget. i think that 90%. but 3% of the entire project. but the focus is such a narrow >> just ask you something. we've established a fact you are one side of the fence or other. you have been on the other side. that.annot tell you we look at the things for us. it is geography. we were in the right spot, the right medium. when you think about boise. >> what are the investments you would have to make that were

part of programs you were associated with? give us an idea. >> the dumb luck of the sec poaching two big 12 schools. they could've built all the fancy stadiums they wanted. they would still be the yankees of the mountain west. >> even the big east because nothing ever lasts. we had joined the big east. we had syracuse, pitt. traveling east, my friend. >> we are here to talk about money so give us some kind of idea. >> in terms of the investment we make? think about it. we made the investment we made with an unknown future. with it know the big east -- will be decided to move football stadium we were in the bound west conference.

with a new football stadium sustain our growth? we didn't know that the big east opportunity would be there. is hard to sit there and say you have to do this. nevere arena position -- underestimate a college keg party. >> amen. >> i am in college with a guy named jamie dixon. i thought he went to uc santa barbara. in.ays he is coming that was our audacious goal. they were in danger of losing the bcs. if they got tcu, they maintain their points so they would not drop. it was a perfect marriage. who would've known that a&m and missouri would lead?

all the decisions we made happened without the knowledge. we would've been perfectly content in the big east doing what we did then. was a landscape changed egos of our geography and dumb luck, we were able to get into the big 12. there is no magical number because boise has done wonderful things with her wonderful investments. byu has done wonderful thing with their investments. teams.icut -- these are part of it is geography and the investment. we were successful. the right keg party. >> the cincinnati athletics department has a debt within the 10th of millions of dollars and they are paying money every year. somebody is paying interest on that debt.

that was a decision that was made by the university to make that investment. to go back to the question you were asking about what the answer is. they have done things facilities wise. you look at what has happened around the pas pack 12. established schools. you look at what is going on within the facilities and the pay to football coaches within the conference. it has been a huge increase. these are places that are already in. they did not have to ante up to get in, they were already there. you are still playing the game. you look around -- you know this really well with what is now

going on at arizona state in terms of facilities and the sport village that went on there. fed bythat is being that television money. that is where the anti e is. doing all those kinds of things. >> you are being a little bit too black and white. you said you were a cynical journalist. we see this a lot in the world of the olympics. go -- people think about the university of texas and the grand value of the university and what does the football team at to that brand. what does that do with recruiting professors, top students, donors and having matthew mcconaughey on the sideline.

i think there is a little bit of cynicism involved in just saying either they made a profit or did not and there was no other benefits that happened. the fifty-year plan you reference for the student athlete or if that is the building of the brand for the university. aen we were looking at potential olympic bid, if you were going into this with the dollar's approach of trying to make money as the first line, you are not going at it for the right reasons. we want them to be cost overrun and be burdensome. you have to see a bigger picture than the black and white numbers. i totally understand that is your job to get to those black and white numbers, but there are some inherent value beyond just whether or not the profit loss category in the schools and the investments they are making. >> i will go beyond what you are talking about. you look at what is the economic

engines of these athletic departments are for their communities on the weekend in athens, georgia. in oxford, mississippi. in tuscaloosa, alabama. you look at the amount of money that gets generated as a result of that. -- you talk about the public policy piece and how that is going. there are a lot of questions if that is appropriate, is that what college -- is that what the college enterprises all about? i am not saying it is or it is not. if you look at the value of these things -- the value of a texas football program every saturday in austin in terms of the numbers of hotel rooms that are occupied, the number of people that are sitting in restaurants after the ballgame. you drive up and down the interstate in florida after a game in gainesville and the cracker barrel is full.

that is what is going on now. >> the needs and better restaurant choices. >> you talk about the academic improvement. think about tcu seven or eight years ago. 00e sat was 14 applicants. it was a perfect storm and now 10 years later, we have 20,000 for those spots. the competition -- the s.a.t. naacp has gone through the roof. the quality of student has gone through the roof because the exposure has brought -- there is a present drop of the big 12. greatest mistake ever made was leaving the big ten because we have become irrelevant to mainstream society.

mainstream's kids love college athletics. you come to a game, we are packed every game. it is a wonderful experience. and has become the fiber of our institution. for good, it is great. we make up 90% of the medium. that brand, when you are good because of the envision of the university and the rise of sport, we have changed the face of tcu. i firmly believe that. there is some value to that. when you only make up between 3% and 5% of the institutions budget and you think of the -- the academic achievement and greatness and you are small portion of it. we spoke so much about the small portion and not the totality of what we bring to the table. >> let's talk about basketball.

we've been spending most of our time talking about football. in thee any difference calculus between the two sports in terms of the way it needs to be managed going forward given on oneferent, i guess, side of the fence versus the other? what do you think? >> i think college basketball right now is a giant problem. the regular season is completely irrelevant. i went to a texas-tcu game at texas last year. i almost fell asleep. taxes was good and tcu was not. [laughter] not at all. wow. >> we were great. >> you name dropped so much today. i really think that college basketball if you look at the ratings are completely flat lines right now. >> the regular season.

>> the regular season is completely irrelevant. i had a coach tell me this --mer at a recruiting event he said the football wednesday basically outeek rates carolina-duke. we are an event-driven culture. there is so much oversaturation. it is one of the negative reverberations. everybody is on tv so it is not special anymore. i can watch nine or 10 games in january. i find myself watching less because you can watch bcu 20 times during the regular season. >> some serious west coast

hoops. >> i love college basketball. i think it is a compelling sport in a lot of different ways, but there is no juice left in the regular season. i think it is somewhat oversaturation. the prism through which the sport is covered. if some white loses a game in december, they will not be a number three seed, they will be a number five seed. the tournament is great. there is nothing better in sports than the basketball turn it. ournament. it is compelling on all sorts of levels. i think right now the regular-season college basketball is in an abysmal place. >> i would totally agree with you about expanding the size of the football term it which would be moving at -- tur ourament.

in terms of the money, uconn which has one like five titles in the last 20 years, they are not part of the big five, are they? >> you can get away with it more in basketball than you can in football. what realignment has taught us is basketball does not matter. follow the money, right? the money is in football. acc, the most storied basketball conference, makes more money in football than they do in basketball. when was the last time you sat down and say i am going to watch an acc football game? there may be one or two a season. i went to maryland. i keep looking for maryland in the acc standings. reasons.are a few

people want an emotional attachment to their institution or team. there are a few institutional problems. one having set both in the nba and college athletics is the one and done role. ule. it is bad for college athletics. the only people that it is good for our the agents -- are the agents. it makes it more difficult to establish an emotional attachment with the fan or the university because as soon as they are, they are gone. the second issue is the number of transfers -- about 40% of college basketball players transfer after their second year. they should have fewer opportunities to transfer. we should have a model that is more like baseball where few want to go to the proles after high school, knock yourself out. other 200 guys that make the mistake of going early are

making a mistake and limiting their lifetime earnings. they should stay in college. if it is like baseball, stay for three years. it would be better for the product. we have to do a better job of marketing. the game presentation was terrible last year and we are fixing that. when we roll out the basketball season, it will be dramatically different. we have to work hard to have people spend the time and are energy to come to the events. >> you are not going to probably have going forward in football one of the have-nots when a national championship, but it is entirely possible it could happen in basketball. why is that? does it cost less? the game itself. what about the economics because you will talk about money? is it easier to be a have not in college basketball? >> there are have not conferences but -- you don't

even know what they are. we look at have and have-nots through a football paradigm. if you look at a place like marquette, villanova -- basketball traditionally because of espn is more market-driven. those schools that have built up a good reputation in those northeastern cities, especially in the midwest -- basketball costs a lot less. you have 13 guys, a coach and staff -- thbut 1/8 of the size. you can do a lot less with basketball. put a basketball league, dump truck of money on the big east's plate. they could not say no. even though the ratings were miniscule, barely registered. i think how completely the sports are financially.

you do need one player. duke returns all of their players for basketball. they have a freshman recruit that will probably be one and done. that transforms them from being a good team to being a championship team. you can go all the way back through history. >> do you think the expansion of the tournament of where we are do you thinkms -- that has contributed to this situation? >> the expansion was basically to protect some of the haves. waacountain west and split. they didn't want to give another at large -- i should know this probably. i don't think that small expansion has had a big factor.

>> there are some of the games to watch. if you are going to compete -- there is the viewing audience and who is at the arena. they need to do a better job at selling and creating more interesting environments because the pros have gotten so good. done itseally has not job across the board of creating a fun environment for basketball. it go to this guy's place, is crazy for tennis. you have to do it for all sports -- make it an engaging environment. you cannot get the emotional attachment because people are transferring or going pro every year -- it is a tough sell. >> being able to keep track of who was going where. some of that was driven by financial considerations and football, but the trickle down effect on that has been interesting as well because you

have seen this kind of shuffle continue its way down into various different leagues. alignmentsing between teams that do not feel familiar in a way. what conference is butler in this year? these -- that has had an impact as well. that is certainly been driven by financial considerations. >> i was used to seeing kansas, texas. now all of a sudden, you see kentucky and florida which is great. all those other teams -- mississippi state rolels in? i call it the cubicle factor. if you work in an office in boston, people went to providence, uconn. they have had dreadful home attendance in basketball.

i think part of it is there is no connection to clemson, nc state. you have two great nights a year but if florida state comes in, there is no reason to care especially in a competitive market. >> and that is a different issue which is the national ratings. as athletic directors, you want butill your buildings really the national discussion is driven by how popular these things are in people's homes and college basketball right now is having a big problem -- can you put the genie back into the bottle? >> i think it would help if you didn't have the one and done structure they have today. i would like to see the baseball set up. if somebody wants to come out of high school, let them go but if they come to the university, they should come because they want to be part of the university. they should not be using it as a one semester training ground and jump to the nba and make a joke

of the university environment. >> i think that hurts the overall perception of college athletics. >> when it was at the university of arizona, it was a great basketball brand. talent.ll was the top does not hurtne in arizona, kentucky because the fan base has been loyal to that athletic program that compete at the highest level. in tcu, we have been to four tournaments in 60 years. four. we are in the mountain west conference. it was better than the big 12 in terms of basketball at one time. they did not resonate. new mexico, utah did not resonate. they are good teams.

>> you're right about the brand. arizona, you could follow those teams for four years. >> olson, every four years he was in the final four. record.n amazing 26 straight years of going to the tournament. we are in the modern west conference, and all the sudden we go to the big 12. we are building a brand-new basketball arena. why? because our brand as basketball was nonexistent. if we are going to make any dent outside of exposure, we will have to hide this -- to have a facility to recruit the finest student athletes to compete at the highest level because we do not have a long history of ask a ball tradition, but if you have the shiny new penny, and hire the right coach, they do care. it is like bringing a student -- they built a brand-new physics building, they will be great in physics because they have the nobel peace prize winner. same concept isk