dr. emmert. i was encouraged by the response to the chairman's question relative to their interest in addressing these issues. now, it's one thing to say that they're willing to do it. another thing to do it. so we wish you success but we understand that you are the proposal. you are the initiator that they are the decision-makers. and so i hope, mr. chairman, over some period of time, hopefully relatively soon we can get a positive result from that effort. because i think that's really where these major issues fall. but doctor amber, would you just give us -- dr. emmert. would you give us one more shot at the ability to address what i think those to the root of the problem? but also to the root of the solution. and that is the top 65 which are the revenue generators. but we don't want to jeopardize is the of the thousand or so that armed, and put them in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill title ix or they won't be able to fulfill the level of sports they give so many young people op

dr. emmert, why wasn't this made public at the time? i think most of the universities would be embarrassed if they were publicly called out that they were unwilling to give a four-year scholarship to an athlete. why did it take a request from congress for this roll call for this to ever reach the light of day? i would ask for this list to be made part of the public record. >> so ordered. >> well, the data were made available to all of the membership -- >> i'm talking about to the public. why didn't you put it on the website? >> i'm not debating the fact. i don't simply know whether it was not put on the website. the debate was very public. it was obviously very disputed case. it's a very interesting debate. i was quite stunned by some of the argumentation. one of the things i didn't mention about change that i anticipate in the coming weeks, mr. branch.ed out something that's part of the olympic movement, olympic tradition now that in the united states that student athletes have to have a very -- not student athletes. olympic athletes h

dr. mark emmert, president of the ncaa, along with the president of univesity of the south carolina and a member of the ncaa board of directors. first on the obannon ruling, the definition of amateurism boils down to you're not paid, does this turn college sports into pro sports? >> it could potentially good. it's consistent with arguments that we have been making all along, and some things that we fundamentally disagree with, most notably, we disagree that there's a violation of antitrust laws going on here. we'll probably continue to argue that in the coming months and beyond. but, it has the potential to fundamentally shift intercollegiate athletics in ways that many people are concerned about. >> so, will you appeal the decision? >> yes, at least in part, we will. again, no one in our legal team or in the college conferences' legal teams believe that the current rules are violations of antitrust laws and we need to get that settled in the courts. >> during the trial, ed o'bannon said i was an athlete masquerading as a student. i was there strictly to play basketball. i did the minimum