NCAA needs the Eddie Robinson Rule like NFL needed the Rooney Rule

Eddie Robinson Rule

Why isn’t there more diversity in D1 college athletics coaching staff?

An article was recently published that pointed out the continued lack of diversity in the coaching staff of college football.  College football is not the only sport with a diversity problem.  A systemic lack of diversity in regards to race and gender is a problem across all of college athletics.  Accordingly, scholars have suggested the implementation of a variation of the NFL’s “Rooney Rule” for college athletics.  The  “Rooney Rule” rule requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and general manager positions.[i] Specifically, scholars have suggested the implementation of the “Eddie Robinson Rule” for college athletics.  This rule would require colleges to interview at least one minority candidate for all head coaching and leadership positions.[ii]

Critics of this rule may argue that its implementation may not make much of a difference because the interview would only be a “token” interview.  Even if the interview is a “token” interview, it is still helpful because it gives the candidate exposure for when another opportunity arises. Moreover, diversifying the interview pool may help the hiring committee in ensuring that they have the best person for the job. The rule may force the hiring committee to consider candidates that they would not have interviewed otherwise.  In the process, the committee may find that the perceived least likely candidate is actually the best person for the job.

Universities Should be the Biggest Supporters of the “Eddie Robinson Rule”

Universities seek to provide their students with the best cultural and well-rounded experience possible.   Thus, they seek to have diversity in their student body, their course offerings, and professors. College athletics is an integral part of the collegiate experience.  Therefore, universities should strive for diversity in that arena too. Furthermore, college athletics provides its participants with a chance to attend college at some of the countries finest universities.

Accordingly, the “education” along with the experiences of playing a collegiate sport is supposed to place the athletes in a better position for success and make them well-rounded individuals.  However, colleges may be failing to provide college athletes with a well-rounded experience due to the racial disparity between players and coaches.  This is especially true with regards to D1 football and men’s basketball players and their coaching staff.

The majority of college football players are persons of color. At FBS schools, roughly fifty-five percent of the players are African-American, and sixty percent are persons of color.[iii] Only eleven percent of D1 college football head coaches are African-American.[iv] Assistant coaching positions and offensive and defensive coordinator positions also lack diversity.[v] Roughly thirteen percent of D1 men’s basketball head coaches are African-American, while roughly fifty-three percent of the players are African-American.[vi] Given the racial disparity between the players and the coaches, it is very unlikely that college athletes are truly receiving a well-rounded experience.  This is why universities should be the biggest proponents of the “Eddie Robinson Rule.”  While no university should be forced to have a certain number of minority coaches, the rule could help universities ensure a more well-rounded and cultural experience for their athletes.

The importance of College Athletes being Coached by a Diverse Staff

College athletes spend the bulk of their time dedicated to their sport.  It is almost as if their sport is a full-time job. Hence, many athletes spend over forty hours per week in a sport related activity.  Therefore, college athletes spend the majority of their time with their teammates and coaching staff.  Accordingly, it is safe to assume that their coaches are some of the most influential people in the athletes’ lives.  Due to the vast amount of influence that coaches have over their players, diversity in the coaching staff is of optimal importance.

Students should leave college feeling emboldened and like they can be successful in their future endeavors.  For that to happen, students must be able to look around their environment and see relatable examples of success. This means that students need to see representations of themselves in positions that they may one day aspire to be in. Studies have proven that the lack of diversity in teachers has a negative effect on students at the K-12 level.[vii] This is particularly true for African-American boys.[viii] Students benefit from having teachers who look like them. Does it not stand to reason that minority college athletes would benefit from having head coaches and coaching staff who look like them?

Unfortunately, some college athletes will have to realize that their dream of playing professionally may not come true.  Those athletes may aspire to work in the game they love.  Accordingly, some may aspire to be a coach, a trainer, an athletic director, or even a conference commissioner.  How are minority college athletes supposed to believe that they can achieve those goals if no one in those positions represents the demographic group of which they identify?

[i] Adam Stites, NFL’s Rooney Rule:  What is it and How Does it Work?, SBNation (Jan. 6, 2018, 8:30 AM),  https://www.sbnation.com/2018/1/6/16856550/rooney-rule-nfl-explained-how-it-works-coaches

[ii] Myron Medcalf, Proposed Eddie Robinson Rule Would Lead to More Chances for Minority Candidates, ESPN (Feb. 4, 2016), http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14530019/national-association-coaching-equity-development-proposes-eddie-robinson-rule-requiring-interviews-minority-candidates.

[iii] Richard Lapchick, NCAA Leaders Get Poor Marks for Diverse Hiring Practices, ESPN (Oct. 3, 2018), http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/24881558/ncaa-continues-get-poor-grades-diversity-their-hiring-practices.

[iv] Paul Myerberg, Lack of Black Head Coaches in Major College Football is Still Crucial Issue for Universities, USA Today (Sept. 27, 2018, 7:07 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/09/27/black-head-coaches-fbs-adopt-rooney-rule-policy/1437792002/.

[v] Id.

[vi] Dr. Richard Lapchick, The 2017 Racial & Gender Report Card:  College Sport, (2018), https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/2017%20College%20Sport%20Racial%20and%20Gender%20Report%20Card.pdf.

[vii] Claire Cain Miller, Does Teacher Diversity Matter in Student Learning?, The New York Times (Sept. 10, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/upshot/teacher-diversity-effect-students-learning.html.

[viii] Id.

Don’t Let the Eric Reid and Malcolm Jenkins Rift “Co-opt” the Movement

Malcolm Jenkins

If there is one thing that social justice movements have proved, it is that there are multiple ways to successfully effectuate change.   The Civil Rights Movement is certainly proof of this. Everyone contributed something that was instrumental to the betterment of the movement. Multiple groups and individuals emerged to push the movement forward each in their own unique way.  The same can be said of the contributions that North Carolina Panthers’ (Panthers) safety Eric Reid and Philadelphia Eagles’ (Eagles) safety Malcolm Jenkins have made to the movement started by Colin Kaepernick in 2016. While they differ in approach, each has made invaluable contributions.

However, on Sunday their contributions were overshadowed.  The attention was turned away from their contributions and was diverted to the escalating rift between Reid and Jenkins.  Immediately following the pre-game coin toss, Reid approached Jenkins, and the two had an unpleasant exchange.

This rift is an unfortunate distraction from the greater purpose of the movement. In the midst of this feud, people may lose sight of the issues that Kaepernick sacrificed his career to bring light to. Kaepernick started the movement to shed light on the injustices of minority communities and to offer solutions to combat police brutality. It is important to make sure that this feud does not overshadow the purpose of the movement.

What Led to the Dispute between Eric Reid and Malcolm Jenkins on Sunday?

It would have been better for their differences to be worked out in private and for the protesting players to present a united front. Unfortunately, that is not the case.  The rift between Reid and Jenkins is no secret.  It stems from Colin Kaepernick’s protest and the establishment of the Players Coalition.  In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and lost his job as a result.   Eric Reid was the first to join Kaepernick in the protest. Reid appeared to suffer the same fate as Kaepernick until the Panthers signed him in late September.

Other players eventually joined the protest.  Among those to join was Malcolm Jenkins, who protested by raising his fist during the national anthem. Jenkins along with Anquan Boldin founded the Players Coalition (Coalition) in 2017 to combat social justice issues and racial inequality.

Initially, Reid was a member of the Coalition, and he and Jenkins stood together in their protest. Unfortunately, their union ended when Reid left the organization. Reid left due to a difference of opinion on what should be the Coalition’s primary focus and who should lead the organization.  Reid wanted one of the Coalition’s goals to be getting Kaepernick back into the league. However, other members did not think Kaepernick’s employment should be a primary goal.  With Jenkins at the helm, the Coalition struck a deal with the NFL without ever putting the Kaepernick issue on the table.  After making the deal, Jenkins stated that he would no longer protest.  After that, Reid left the Coalition.  On Sunday after the game, Reid called Jenkins a “sell-out” and accused him of “co-opting” the movement.

The Feud Cannot Takeaway From the Movement

The public division amongst the protesting players puts the purpose of the movement at risk of getting lost. It is easy for dissenters of the movement to focus on the spectacle and use it to discredit the movement.  The optics of the spectacle affirms what many dissenters think, which is that the movement is disorganized and fueled by protestors who cannot even agree amongst themselves. While this is not true, this is exactly the type of ammunition that opponents of the movement will use to discredit it.

Furthermore, the optics on Sunday affirms the contentions that NFL games are not the time or place for protesting because it distracts from the game.  After Reid and Jenkins’ exchange, it is hard to argue that the protest does not distract from the game.  Therefore, the feud between Reid and Jenkins could “co-opt” the movement.

What Reid and Jenkins Could do Differently

To keep that from happening, the protesting players need to demonstrate unity.  They need to remind the public of the issues that they are fighting for. Although Reid and Jenkins have different approaches, they are both working for the betterment of minority communities.  They both want to see improved police relations in minority communities. Both Reid and Jenkins have taken steps to move the movement forward and effectuate real change. This is what Reid and Jenkins need to keep in the headlines instead of their rift.

Jenkins has already taken a step in that direction. On Wednesday, Jenkins reminded everyone that Kaepernick started the movement and that it cost him his career.  He also stated that Kaepernick should have a job in the NFL.  While this is a step in the right direction, all protesting players need to make sure their actions do not distract from the greater purpose of the movement.

Maryland Football: Booster Removed From Team Plane over Jordan McNair Comments

Maryland Football

College athletes have power and influence when they rally together.  The football team at the University of Maryland, College Park (Maryland) proved this the players caused a highly regarded booster removed from the team’s flight prior to their game against the University of Michigan.  The booster, Rick Jaklitsch, made insensitive comments about Jordan McNair, a former Maryland football player who died on June 13, 2018. McNair died as a result of a heat stroke he suffered in a team practice on May 29, 2018.

Jaklitsch essentially blamed McNair for his own death. His comments did not sit well with the remaining members of the team. Accordingly, when the players learned Jaklitsch was scheduled to fly with them to Michigan, they demanded that he be removed from the flight.  Thereafter, Jaklitsch was removed.

The Unrealized Power of College Athletes

Maryland’s football players successful effort to remove Jaklitsch from their team flight shows just how powerful college athletes can be.  It seems as though college athletes may think they are powerless. However, the opposite is true. College athletes have the power to effectuate real change because they are the labor force driving a billion-dollar industry.  There is so much money at stake in college athletics.  All of that money rides on the athletes’ willingness to compete.

Accordingly, when athletes are unwilling to compete things change. This was proven in 2015 when the University of Missouri (Missouri) football team forced the resignation of the university president, Tim Wolfe.   Members of the student body called for President Wolfe’s resignation due to his failure to adequately address the volatile racial climate on the campus.  Very little was accomplished in the student body protest until members of the Missouri football team refused to play unless President Wolfe resigned. Two days later, President Wolfe resigned. Missouri would have faced a one million dollar payout to Brigham Young University if they forfeited the game.  The football players’ refusal to give their labor forced the university to take action or suffer a major financial penalty. Accordingly, this situation proves that college athletes have power because of the financial incentives that are tethered to their labor.

College Athletes Are Their Most Powerful Advocate

Several people advocate on behalf of college athletes’ rights in a variety of ways.     Some advocate for their rights in court while others create documentaries exposing the ugly truth about the NCAA and the billion-dollar college athletics industry.  This advocacy is needed and serves the greater purpose of helping the rights of college athletes to finally be recognized.  However, the college athletes themselves have the most power to be their best advocate and effectuate immediate change. The labor of college athletes is what drives college athletics.  Without their willingness to give their labor, there would be no one to coach and no content to leverage billion-dollar television deals.

If college athletes used their labor as a bargaining tool for more freedom, they would likely see immediate change. They could bargain for the right to profit from their own name.  It is true that college athletes do have some incentive to give their labor because they may receive a cost of attendance scholarship.  However, many college athletes are uniquely situated to receive other benefits and should be allowed to do so.  College athletes have the power to be the change that many of them may want to see.

LeBron James HBO Documentary ‘Student Athlete’ Exposes NCAA Racket

LeBron James HBO Documentary

On the night of one the most exciting preseason games of LeBron James’ career, he demonstrated yet again that he is “more than an athlete.”  On Tuesday night, LeBron James made his debut at Staples Center during the Lakers preseason home opener against the Denver Nuggets.  However, James’ “more than an athlete” demonstration did not take place on the court.  It took place on the airways in Americans homes’ as LeBron James HBO Documentary ‘Student-Athlete’ aired the same night on HBO.

The documentary is a searing indictment of the NCAA and the billion-dollar college athletics industry.  The documentary exposes the exploitative nature of the industry and the detrimental effect the system has on the lives of those the NCAA claims to protect.  It shows that the NCAA does not work to serve the best interest of “student-athletes.”  Hopefully, those who may have been “on the fence” in the “pay for play” debate will at least acknowledge that college athletics is in need of reform after seeing the documentary.

What is the NCAA?

The NCAA is the governing body for college athletics, and the colleges are member institutions of the NCAA.  The NCAA’s so-called purpose is to protect the well-being of college athletes and to ensure their lifelong success.  For years, the NCAA has failed to live up to this purpose.  The Student-Athlete Documentary drives this point home through the stories of those highlighted in the film.

The Exploitative Nature of the NCAA is Really Nothing New

For years, college athlete rights advocates have pointed out the hypocrisy of the NCAA’s model. The NCAA’s failure to deliver on the promise made to so many college athletes of looking out for their best interest.  The NCAA and its member institutions promise college athletes a meaningful education that will lead to a bright and prosperous future.  Unfortunately, for so many athletes this is not their reality.

The documentary highlights the story of Mike Shaw who suffered serious back injuries from basketball.  While he received a degree, he was unable to find a job.  He was forced to delay treatment for his injuries because he did not have insurance.  As a result, Shaw suffers from physical and mental health issues.  The NCAA essentially failed Mike Shaw as they failed to help him prepare for and transition to life after basketball.

If the NCAA wants to ensure lifelong success for its “student-athletes,” they must do a better job of helping former athletes transition to life after their sport.  The NCAA could accomplish this by allowing the athletes to receive the full value of their worth in college.  There are several ways the NCAA could achieve this.  One way is for the NCAA to adopt some variation of the Olympic model.  Doing this would allow college athletes to earn more of their worth.  It would place them in a better financial position to transition to life after sports.

Why is the NCAA so Powerful?

Although the NCAA does not acknowledge it, college football and basketball is a pseudo minor league for the NFL and NBA.  Many high school athletes seek to make it to D1 college athletics in hopes of making it professionally. This is what makes the NCAA so powerful.  College athletics is the track to the NFL and NBA. However, the athletes are not as free as they may seem to leave college and go professional.  The documentary made this point when it highlighted the story of Silas Nacita.

Nacita played football for Baylor University until he was declared ineligible.   Nacita, who was homeless, was declared ineligible when he accepted housing from his friend’s grandparents.  The grandparents had no interest in football and only wanted to help someone who was in need.  As a result of this, Nacita was not able to complete his last year of college eligibility. He was subsequently declared ineligible to for the NFL draft. To be eligible for the NFL, the player must have been out of high school for three years and must have used all of their college eligibility.

As was shown in the documentary, those rules did nothing to help Nacita.  They actually hurt him.  He was not able to compete in college and was not able to be seen by NFL scouts because of rules set by the NCAA and the universities.  Nacita was in a no-win situation all because the NCAA and their member institutions work to ensure college athletes receive no benefit for their athleticism other than a scholarship no matter how dire their need.

The Documentary Will Hopefully Foster Conversations that Will Lead to Reform

After watching LeBron James HBO Documentary, it is clear that college athletics still needs reform.  Little changes have been made, such as the allowance of cost-of-attendance scholarships, but that is not enough. The NCAA has made it clear that their primary focus is protecting “amateurism”  and their bottom line instead of “student-athlete” well being. Viewers should watch Student-Athlete with an open mind. They should try to see that the NCAA’s primary objective is not what it claims. After watching, viewers will hopefully acknowledge the need for college athletics reform.

Which League has the Best Playoffs: MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL?

best playoffs

Best Part of Pro Sports

The playoffs are a special time in sports. Fans are on the edge of their seats, players are little more nervous, and the margin of error is as slim as possible. The chance to win a title is a dream that keeps you up at night. It’s the culmination of all the hard work done in the offseason and regular season.

Keeping that in mind, I pose this question. What sport has the best playoffs? For the purpose of this argument, we’re choosing from the four major sports – MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL.

Let the debate begin.

4. NBA

“Why do I even bother if I already know what’s going to happen? It’s going to be the Cavs vs. Warriors in the NBA finals?” – Average fan/basketball hater.

I love the NBA. Watching the best players in the world night in and night out is great television. We live in an era that has some of the best players ever to lace them up. Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Steph Curry, James Harden, and the legend himself, LeBron James, are all in the prime of their career. Their basketball abilities are unfathomable.

However, there is some truth to the “we already know the outcome” statement. For an 82 game season, there isn’t too much drama that occurs in the playoffs. The Warriors represented the West in four straight seasons, and LeBron represented the East in eight (!!!) straight finals. If you’re lucky, you’ll have a few series make it to 7 games, but on the flip side, there are A LOT of blowouts. That’s not exactly must-see television. Take a look at last year’s playoffs.

Thankfully, the Celtics were competitive enough to force a few Game 7s. However, as great as LeBron James was last year, the Cavs had no chance in a 7 game series against the Warriors. There is not a lot of parity. Maybe this year will be different, and a new team will emerge as champion!

Just kidding. The Warriors will beat the _________ in 5 games…again.

3. NFL

What the NFL has on its side is a favorable length to the season. 16 games to a season may be easier to watch and keep track of than a 162 game baseball season. It also stresses the importance of the regular season. In the playoffs, the NFL has Divisional Weekend, which is arguably the best weekend in sports. Crazy and exciting things seem to always happen in the Divisional Round. Just look at last season. DIGGS! SIDELINE! TOUCHDOWN! UNBELIEVABLE!

https://twitter.com/ByBasedInFact/status/959996519230435328

However, that doesn’t always happen every year. Compared to baseball and hockey, the unpredictability factor is fairly low. In 14 of the last 15 seasons, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Ben Roethlisberger have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl. That’s great if you’re a fan of those quarterbacks, but not so much if you root for the other teams. Also, the first round is notorious for having a few poor games and mismatches. Last year was an outlier (although the Jaguars beat the Bills 10-3), but in 2016, the smallest losing deficit was 13. It truly depends on the year, but the small amount of playoff games backfires when the games are not exciting.

2. NHL

Do you want to talk about edge of your seat television? Look no further than the NHL playoffs. It is so hard to score a goal in hockey, so when it happens in the playoffs, it’s like winning the Super Bowl. The celebrations are epic. From the announcers to the fans in the arena to the millions watching at home, the atmosphere is electric. Players are diving in front of shots on every possession. Goalies are standing on their heads to make impossible saves. If you blink, you might miss the action.

By far, the NHL has the highest unpredictability factor out of the four major sports. Chalk doesn’t always win. Two years ago, the Nashville Predators made the Stanley Cup Final as an 8 seed. Two years ago, a 2 seed defeated a 3 seed in the finals. Three years ago, a 3 seed defeated a 2 seed in the finals. There’s no stopping a hot goalie in the playoffs. Did I also mention that the Stanley Cup is the best trophy in professional sports?

1. MLB

For me, nothing beats October baseball. After a long 162 game season, 10 teams duke it out over one month for a chance to win the World Series. Just like hockey, baseball has an exciting atmosphere. I was lucky enough to attend the Wild Card game last year between the Twins and Yankees, and I thought I was going deaf after the game. I’d argue that home field matters the most in baseball as opposed to the other major sports. In terms of format, it’s the only major sport to change the number of games in each round. The Division Series is best-of-five while the Championship Series and World Series are best-of-seven.

Baseball is truly a “never say die game” because 10 teams have come back from 0-2 deficits in the Division Series and one team has come back from a 0-3 deficit, with the latter never happening in the NBA. The length of the postseason is perfect. It takes a little over one month to crown a champion as opposed to the drawn-out NBA and NHL playoffs, which last two months. Plus, teams play on consecutive days, which doesn’t happen in the other major sports. Give me the eighth inning of a tie ball game with bases loaded, two outs over any playoff situation in the major sports.

Do you agree or disagree with the Best Playoffs: MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL rankings? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Update: Alston v. NCAA: Amateurism on Trial for Violating Anti-Trust Law

Amateurism

The NCAA will stop at nothing to preserve its beloved “amateurism.”  This article is an update to the initial details of the Alston v. NCAA case detailed on the Unafraid Show. The NCAA demonstrated this last week with the parade of witnesses they called to defend their bedrock principle of “amateurism” in the Alston v. NCAA trial.  In Alston, former college athletes sued the NCAA to have the cap limiting athletic scholarships to cost-of-attendance removed.  The Plaintiffs argue that the cap is a violation of federal antitrust laws.  Each witness offered justifications in support of the NCAA’s assertion that the cap is necessary to protect “amateurism” and to help “student-athletes” become apart of the greater campus community.

There was a recurring theme amongst the NCAA’s witnesses.  Almost every witness argued that removing the cap would have a detrimental effect on college athletics.  However, many of the witnesses failed to offer any hard evidence of that assertion.  They relied on their opinions, which are not sufficient in this antitrust case.  The issue of whether removing the cap would have a detrimental effect on college athletics is the main issue in the case. Therefore, arguments for and against must be supported by expert testimony and/or quantitative data.

NCAA Witnesses in Support of “Amateurism”

The NCAA called several witnesses who offered complex testimony that addressed a variety of issues.  The following are highlights from a few of the testimonies.

Rebecca Blank’s Testimony

First, the NCAA called Rebecca Blank, the Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (Wisconsin).  Her testimony was fascinating as it will likely do more harm than good to the NCAA.  While Blank testified that “student-athletes” should not be paid, she also criticized how much coaches are paid.   She stated that it was “unfortunate” that the cap on coaches salaries’ was removed and asserted that the high salaries make the programs look bad.  This assertion made Blank appear to not fully support the NCAA’s and Power 5 conferences’ model.

Relatedly, Blank testified that if “student-athletes” were paid, Wisconsin would reconsider its participation in college athletics. Wisconsin issued a statement the very next day that completely undermined Blank’s testimony. The statement made it clear that Wisconsin has no plans to stop offering college athletics.  Blank’s testimony and Wisconsin’s response makes the NCAA and the Power 5 conferences look disjointed. Furthermore, Blank failed to offer any quantitative evidence to support her assertion that loosening the cap would negatively affect college athletics.

Michael Aresco’s and Eugene Smith’s Testimonies

Similarly, American Athletic Commissioner Michael Aresco testified that the rules capping scholarships are necessary to help smaller conferences like his compete.  He argued that the cap ensures that the “big” schools cannot recruit all of the talents.  This argument is flawed.  Even with the cap, it is generally the same teams in the football bowl games, in the college football playoffs, and in the later rounds of the March Madness Tournament. While Aresco’s testimony is more helpful than Blank’s, he too failed to offer any quantitative evidence in support of his claim that loosening the cap would negatively affect college athletics.

Accordingly, the athletic director at Ohio State University Eugene Smith testified.  His testimony was generally helpful to the NCAA.  He pointed out that not all college athletes will play professionally and that they need to be prepared for that reality.  Smith acknowledged if college athletes were paid there would still be fans, although there may be less.   He also asserted that donors might be less inclined to donate.

What is Next in Alston

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, each party presented the rest of their witnesses.  The trial ended on September 25.  Each party will submit a written closing argument to the judge.  The judge will then take some time to review and then issue a ruling.  After the ruling is issued the parties will have the option to appeal to the federal appeals court in the 9th circuit.  This case could possibly reach the United States Supreme Court.  Alston v. NCAA is extremely significant to college athletics.  If the plaintiffs succeed, it could completely change the world of college athletics.

Alston v. NCAA: Amateurism on Trial for Violating Anti-Trust Law

Amateurism -Alston vs NCAA

College Athletes vs NCAA – Amateurism is on trial again!  On Tuesday, September 4, the trial for what has become known as Alston v. NCAA commenced in federal district court in Oakland, California. Judge Claudia Wilken is presiding.  She also presided over the O’Bannon case in which the NCAA lost. Per O’Bannon, the NCAA can not use the images of its former student-athletes for commercial purposes after graduation without compensation.  Alston could completely change the landscape of the billion dollar industry of college athletics, which is comprised of television and sponsorship deals.

The NCAA and the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences are faced with defending their beloved principle of amateurism. The plaintiffs’ claim that the rules capping scholarships at grants-in-aid and cost-of-attendance violate federal antitrust laws.  The O’Bannon case already determined that the NCAA is subject to federal antitrust laws. So, the NCAA is required to defend against related claims.

College Athletes’ Argument 

The plaintiffs are at the cusp of destroying the charade of amateurism by seeking to remove the NCAA’s scholarship cap.  The cap prevents “student-athletes” from receiving scholarship money above the cost-of-attendance.  A cost-of-attendance scholarship provides student-athletes with an opportunity to get an education without paying. However, it is often not enough to cover many of the athletes’ general living expenses such as food and clothing.

NCAA’s Argument

The NCAA argues that the rules capping scholarships do not violate federal antitrust laws because they are essential to protecting amateurism. They state that the rules are necessary to help “student-athletes” fully integrate themselves into the campus community. They also argue that eliminating amateurism rules will damage college athletics.

The NCAA contends that if student-athletes are allowed more than a cost-of-attendance scholarship, they will cease to be “amateurs” and fans will lose interest. They also state that the scholarship cap helps student-athletes integrate into campus communities. However, the NCAA’s integration argument provides no evidence that the presence of a scholarship cap helps student-athletes.  “Integration” is more likely affected by the major time commitment that each sport requires coupled with the time mandated for actual coursework.  It is highly unlikely that a scholarship cap does anything to alleviate the time management burden each “student-athlete” is faced with in balancing their sport with academics.

Given the flaws in the NCAA’s arguments, it appears that the plaintiffs may have a viable shot at having the cap removed. The plaintiffs counter this argument by noting that the individual conferences will have the choice to adopt their own individual policies regarding compensation caps.  They also argue that college athletics will benefit from changes to amateurism.

The Outcome Could Change College Athletics 

The outcome of this case could completely change the future of college athletics.  If the plaintiffs are successful, the world of college recruiting would completely change. The college recruitment market would essentially be open for conferences and colleges to make their own decisions on how much scholarship money to award student-athletes.

This type of open market would provide the freedom for student-athletes to receive more of the value that they provide to the colleges they attend. Although many student-athletes receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship that provides them with the opportunity to get a “free” education, colleges make millions off the backs of student-athletes each year.  Most of the money is dispersed to coaches, staff, and is used to build lavish athletic facilities.  The current structure is simply not fair to the student-athletes, and as such, they have a lot to gain from the outcome of this case.  If the Plaintiffs are successful, “student-athletes” will be in a better position because they will receive more of the value that they bring to their respective schools.

Colin Kaepernick and Nike – Did Nike Just Do It or Just Blew It

Colin Kaepernick

Nike almost broke Twitter when it announced that Colin Kaepernick would be the face of their 30th anniversary “Just Do it” Campaign. It has been a polarizing debate that has lingered on for days. Everyone has their opinion about the health and future of the NFL, Kaepernick, and Nike. That debate will continue as the Nike ads will start running Thursday during the NFL’s Falcons-Eagles Kickoff game. I am here to provide facts and insight on the situation.

Social responsibility, protests, and action are the American way. This country was founded on protest. However, evidence shows that protests are largely ineffective unless they disrupt the everyday lives of people. So, a Twitter protest is just a social media protest that will affect people’s buying habits for days, not months or years. In the last year, people have tried to boycott Chick-fil-a, In-N-Out, Starbucks, and the NFL. All have gone on to make more money.

Nike Just Blew It

Is having Kaepernick on the face of the campaign “bad for business”? Did Nike really alienate half its customer base? Twitter business prognosticators and an angry mob would have you believe that’s true.

The facts are that half of Nike’s nearly $36 billion of revenue in 2017 comes from overseas. And 2/3 of all Nike customers are 35 or under. So while they did piss off a specific demographic, in all likelihood they aren’t Nike’s core customers anyway. NIKE absolutely dominates the sports footwear market. And has recovered the 5.5% of its market share of US footwear it lost to Adidas in 2017.

Nike spends millions on research every year. So, choosing Kaepernick to be the face of the campaign was a very calculated decision. The company was built on rebellion and bucking the system, and Kaepernick falls right in line with that. Michael Jordan and Steve Prefontaine are Nike’s cornerstone athletes. Both bucked the system. Pre was an eccentric runner who bucked the norms. Jordan’s shoes were banned by the NFL, but he continued to wear them. Nike rebelled and took a chance on a black athlete as their pitchman in the 80s. Most companies believed it to be a risky business. We see how that turned out.

Nike’s Stock is Getting Killed

Many people believed that Nike’s stock would drop significantly and it would hurt the business. They thought that “protesters” would abandon a well-performing stock to prove a point. Well, that has shown to false so far. Nike’s stock closed at $82.18 per share on Friday, Aug. 31st.  Nike made the announcement on Labor Day when the markets were not open. By the close of Tuesday Nike’s stock was down $3 to $79.01. On Thursday, September 6th (NKE) closed at $80.40 per share. So yes, Nike’s stock is down $1.78 since the Kaepernick campaign announcement, but it appeared to be normal market fluctuation. On September 11th, the stock price reached as high as $83.57. which is the highest it has ever been. Here is Nike’s last year on the market:

Colin Kaepernick and Nike

NFL will drop Nike

The Twitter mob would have you believe that the NFL may end their relationship with Nike.

Nike is bigger and badder than the NFL. There is ZERO chance the NFL takes legal steps to remove Nike as their official apparel provider. Nike and the NFL are in the midst of an apparel contract that was just extended to 2028. It would likely cost the NFL billions in damages if they breached the contract. The thought that the NFL was blindsided by the Colin Kaepernick signing is doubtful. The league may not have had much advance notice about it, but they have known for much longer than we know. The evidence lies in the NFL’s response to Nike’s campaign, and in the league suspending any consequences to players kneeling.

The NFL responded by saying:

“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity,” executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore said in the league’s statement. “We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities. The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”

There will be some angry owners, but they will get over it. The smartest thing the NFL can do is take a page out of the NBA’s playbook. Stay out of litigation and public discord with your players. Let your players be individuals free to say and do as they please. Fans want their players on the field, not in the courtroom fighting the league.

The owners also have realized that despite what the POTUS or some of the media tell you NFL revenues and total viewership is up despite falling ratings. Nearly all television network ratings have dropped at a much higher rate than NFL game ratings. Antiquated Nielsen ratings are the biggest factor in the decrease in ratings while total viewership has increased. Those ratings do not account for “cord cutters” and people who watch games through streaming services like Amazon, Hulu TV, YouTube TV, Sling, Roku, etc.

Colleges will drop Nike

There is a faction of people who believe that universities like Alabama, Oregon, or Florida would consider dropping Nike.

There is ZERO chance that happens as well.

“Schools can’t stop any of them: Nike, Under Armour, Adidas,” said David Carter, executive director of USC’s Sports Business Institute. “They don’t have the contractual ability to do that.”

Aside from having no legal ground to void their deals, what alternative do schools have? Nike writes the biggest checks and sells the most merchandise, which handsomely increases these universities bottom line. And we all know that the NCAA always protects the bottom line before the student-athlete.

Breaking Away From Nike

I conducted a poll on Twitter. Thanks to all those who voted and shared. Reading the comments on this poll was fascinating. There were a lot of “let’s rock the vote” comments going on, which only proves my point about Twitter boycotts. They trend, but rarely result in a significant economic impact.

How can a sports fan realistically #BoycottNike? It’s impossible. Nike is the official apparel company for the NFL, NBA, most college basketball teams, and 52.8% of all FBS college football programs. So, if you want to rep your favorite team, you will be giving Nike some cash. And you will absolutely see plenty of swooshes and commercials as you watch the games. Nike also owns Converse and Hurley as well. So, good luck with that.

It is your right to hate or love Nike for signing Kaepernick. However, you have no soul if you hate this commercial.

[yotuwp type=”videos” id=”cfFs48qyQy4″ title=”off” description=”off”]

*Updated Sept. 11th 10:26 am pt to reflect Nike’s YTD stock price

NCAA Protecting Amateurism or Capitalism?

NCAA Protecting Amateurism or Capitalism

Is the NCAA protecting amateurism more important than protecting the physical or educational well-being of student-athletes?  It appears so, given the variance in the NCAA’s response to scandals involving its self-imposed duty to protect their “bedrock” principle of “amateurism” versus its duty to protect the physical or educational well-being of “student-athletes.” The NCAA quickly asserts its power to issue sanctions in cases involving “amateurism” (typically cases where athletes receive a so-called “impermissible benefit”), but somehow manages to avoid its obligation to act in cases where the conduct of coaches and other administrative personnel places “student-athletes” physical and educational well-being in jeopardy.

The NCAA proclaimed itself as the body responsible for upholding the principle of “amateurism”

They are supposed to ensure that “student-athletes” are not commercially or professionally exploited. This has come to mean making sure athletes are not able to profit from their athletic abilities outside of a cost of attendance scholarship.  The NCAA also proclaimed itself to be the body that works to ensure that “intercollegiate programs [are] conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational well-being of student-athletes.”[i] When presented with a case regarding an “impermissible benefit” the NCAA quickly responds and usually issues sanctions.

For example, when thirteen University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC) football players sold their team-issued shoes, the NCAA responded quickly suspending the players for one to four games.  When Donald De La Haye, a former University of Central Florida (UCF) kicker, monetized his YouTube videos that featured him as a “student-athlete,” the NCAA swiftly swooped in to stop the monetization of his videos.  The NCAA rushed in to require three Oklahoma University “student-athletes” to donate $3.83 each to a charity of their choice for violating NCAA rules by eating too much pasta at a graduation banquet.  In these types of cases, the NCAA is swift in their response to make sure the athletes receive no benefit for their athletic prowess other than a scholarship under the guise of keeping the athletes safe from exploitation.

NCAA Slow to Tread

However, when it is time for the NCAA to act to protect the physical and educational well-being of “student-athletes” the NCAA treads slowly and usually finds a way to avoid its obligation to issue any sanctions at all in such cases.  For example, the NCAA refrained from issuing sanctions against Michigan State University (MSU) in the case of Larry Nassar, who was criminally convicted of sexual assault earlier this year.  The NCAA reasoned that although Nassar was criminally liable, there was nothing during the course of their investigation to suggest that an NCAA violation was committed.  Similarly, in the academic fraud case at UNC, the NCAA avoided issuing sanctions reasoning that they lacked the power to sanction UNC because no “impermissible benefit” was given to the athletes because the “sham” courses were open to everyone at the university.  In these types of cases, the NCAA is always eerily quiet and looking for a way to avoid truly getting involved.

The NCAA has yet to give a statement on whether Ohio State University will face any sanctions as a result of the scandal involving their revered football coach Urban Meyer who was recently suspended after being found to have knowledge of the domestic abuse allegations against his former assistant coach Zach Smith.  The NCAA has also been measured in its response to the death of Jordan McNair, a University of Maryland, College Park football player who suffered a heat stroke during practice and died two weeks later.  Given the NCAA’s response to similar cases involving “student-athletes” well-being, the NCAA will likely find a way to skirt its duty in these cases as well.

This leads one to question.

What message is the NCAA sending to their beloved “student-athletes” by essentially remaining silent in cases that involve athlete welfare, but always rushing to issue sanctions in cases involving “impermissible benefits?”  The NCAA is sending the message that “impermissible benefits” are of paramount concern to the NCAA, but issues involving athlete welfare not so much.  These actions leave “student-athletes” with only one possible view and that is that protecting “amateurism” is more important to the NCAA than protecting the physical or educational well-being of “student-athletes.”

UPDATE TO THE CASE: https://unafraidshow.com/update-alston-v-ncaa-amateurism-trial-violating-anti-trust-law/

[i]  2017-2018 NCAA Division I Manual, (2017), available at http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/attachments1/files/11600/628372.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=11600.

NCAA Still Misses the Mark with New Transfer Rule!

Let’s Not Get Too Excited About the NCAA’s New Transfer Rule

by: Kassandra Armstrong

Many are needlessly praising the NCAA for replacing the “permission-to-contact” rule, which required college athletes to obtain their current coaches’ permission prior to contacting another institution, with the “notification-of-transfer” rule.  Set to become effective this October, the “notification-of-transfer” rule has relinquished the unfettered power coaches had over the academic and athletic future of athletes seeking a transfer as athletes are no longer required to seek permission and are only required to notify their coach of their desire to transfer.  Within two business days following notification, the athlete’s name will be entered into a national transfer database whereby any coach can contact the athlete.

While many are praising the NCAA for passing a rule that benefits the athletes, those accolades are unwarranted as it is unlikely that the rule will provide an equally significant benefit to all athletes because of its failure to address the issue of immediate eligibility upon transfer.  Athletes in major revenue-producing sports still are unable to transfer with immediate eligibility and are required to sit out for a year upon transferring.  This requirement is detrimental to the athletes’ athletic future.  For the “notification-of-transfer” rule to truly be effective, it must be accompanied by an equitable rule allowing all college athletes to be eligible immediately upon transferring.

Some suggest that athletes with a certain grade point average be allowed to transfer with immediate eligibility.  If such a rule is created, perhaps the rule could take the form of a balancing test that considers other factors, such as the athlete’s involvement in co-curricular activities in addition to grade point average.  Implementing a rule that considers the athlete’s collegiate experience as a whole, instead of a one-size-fits-all grade point average requirement is a more equitable way to determine who should have immediate eligibility as each athlete has a unique set of strengths and weaknesses.  While the NCAA took a small step in the right direction with the “notification-of-transfer” rule, it does not warrant any praise because the rule falls short of truly ensuring equitable transferability for all athletes.