Interview w/Ricky Volante: Historical Basketball League Plans to Disrupt NCAA

Historical Basketball League

Educate and Compensate

Should college athletes be paid? The Historical Basketball League says yes. The HBL is a start-up basketball league that plans to disrupt the NCAA’s current economic model. It was co-founded by sports and entertainment attorney Ricky Volante and economist Andy Schwarz. The HBL plans to totally disrupt the NCAA’s system. Their aim is to give “basketball athletes a unique US-based opportunity without economic and academic exploitation.” With its inaugural season set for 2020, the HBL plans to pay their players their market value while ensuring they receive a quality education.

There are college sports fans on both sides of the debate about compensating college athletes. Opponents contend that an athletic scholarship is a sufficient compensation for the hard work that college athletes put in. They also contend that college athletes who wish to be paid should simply play where they can receive payment. Whereas, supporters contend that an athletic scholarship is not enough compensation for the billion dollar industry that the labor of college athletes propels. Until recently the only such option was to play in a professional league in another country.

In November, the HBL announced that former two-time NBA Champion David West would be joining the league as its first Chief Operating Officer (COO).  In light of this announcement, I interviewed Ricky Volante to get more insight into the HBL and exactly how it plans to take over the college basketball market by educating and compensating the players.

Kassandra: First, before we dive into the Historical Basketball League could you tell me a little about yourself?

Ricky:  I started off as an attorney based in Cleveland, Ohio working with individuals and issues related to sports, film, and music. I got the opportunity to work with a number of athletes during their professional careers. While in law school, I worked with one of the mid-major five conferences. There, I got the opportunity to see how things worked within the enforcement side of the NCAA’s amateurism rules. Those two experiences were a driving factor for me getting more involved with college sports and led to Andy and me connecting.

Kassandra:  Could you briefly explain what the Historical Basketball League is?  What Prompted you and Andy Schwarz to create the league?

Ricky:  Essentially we are building the Historical Basketball League to become the primary opportunity starting with men’s college basketball players. Initially, Andy and I came together to write an article analyzing the O’Bannon decision. During that time, we both realized a similar passion related to bringing about change within college sports. He then shared with me the original iteration of the HBL. He thought it was a way to bring about change by putting it into economist terminology.

The way he presented it was that you break up an economic cartel in four ways.  Number one is legislation. It simply is not going to happen legislatively given the current political climate. Furthermore, legislation is not going to be drafted to benefit predominately black college athletes.  Number two is litigation.  He [Andy] has been involved in White v NCAA, Obannon v NCAA, and now Alston v NCAA. In various ways, those litigations have chipped away at little pieces of the amateurism mold. However, there have not been wholesale changes to the very foundation.

Number three is an organization or unionization. This failed at Northwestern. The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) punted on the decision and did not allow the Northwestern players to unionize. Accordingly, there are additional restrictions for students at a public university to try to unionize. Therefore, for now, that door seems closed. The only option left [to break up an economic cartel] was competition. We decided to form a league that would compete with the NCAA. Initially, we were focused on that competitive element maybe bringing about change to the NCAA. However, we have now shifted into a focal point of replacing them as the primary option for college basketball players.

Kassandra:  What is the structure of the league and how will it operate?

Ricky:  We will be structured as a single entity.  Therefore, all of the players will be employed by the HBL.  The teams will be owned by the HBL. There will be a centralized leadership group as opposed to the traditional ownership model that is employed by the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.  For those who may not be aware, there are other single entity leagues. The NBA G-League, Major League Soccer, and Major League Lacross are single entity leagues. We are by no means inventing the wheel, we are just utilizing what is already in existence to our benefit.

There are a few reasons for doing that. One is that we want to have controlled sustained growth as opposed to the rocketship mentality of let’s see how high and how far we go and how fast we can get there.  That [mentatilty] has been the main reason for start-up leagues to ultimately crumble and fail when they try to compete with a long-standing incumbent such as the NCAA.

For both legal reasons and from a business standpoint, we wanted to have that single entity structure in place. Our league is going to be comprised of teams operating out of various cities across the country that will be closely located to a number of universities that will ultimately be providing the educational piece of our player’s compensation package.

Kassandra:  The HBL has chosen 20 potential cities to host HBL teams. How were the potential Cities Chosen?

Ricky:  We looked at a range of factors.  First and foremost we wanted cities that would be beneficial and attractive to players to live in.  Second, we wanted the teams to be in close proximity to a number of universities. With the model we are using there is no one to one match. For example, our Cleveland, Ohio team could have players [attending] Cleveland State, Case Western, Akron, and a number of other universities.  We wanted to create as many options for the players as possible. The available schools would likely play a factor in the player deciding what city to play in. Therefore, if a player always wanted to attend a certain school that player would pick the city that is closest to that school.

Also, we wanted to pick cities that we felt would be attractive to team operators, potential sponsors, and that would create an opportunity for us to grow the revenue of the league as we continue to develop.

Kassandra:  How will the final cities be selected?

Ricky:  The cities will be narrowed down from 20 to 12 on a first come first serve basis.  We are reaching out to potential team operators. Potential team operators are reaching out to us.  A team operator will be a shareholder of the HBL. The team operator will control certain elements of the team, but will not own the team.  The team operator will have access to certain other rights.  Team operators will have input on venue selection, jersey design, team name, and other things depending on how early they get involved.

Kassandra: Being that we are both from Virginia, I have to say I am pulling for Richmond, Virginia.

Ricky:  I am too. We also considered the saturation of the sports market in particular cities when we selected the potential cities.  Richmond only has a minor league baseball team and a number of universities. These facts made it sort of a perfect option for us. The city has gone through a lot of renovations in terms of infrastructure, transportation, and investment in certain developments in the area. It is a much more attractive city to live in now. However, it does not have a major sports team to latch on to as a city. This is why Richmond is one of our primary choices even though people may not think of it as a first thought city when it comes to sports.

Kassandra:  Originally the HBL wanted to get schools, specifically Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to participate in the league. Is that still a goal?

Ricky:  We wanted to keep the HBCU element alive as best we could.  Selecting cities that were near HBCUs was another factor we considered. Our southeastern cities are areas where HBCUs are clustered together. However, this is a pretty drastic shift from what the original plan was where the teams would be the universities’. That plan is long since gone.  We ultimately decided that as the new entrant into the market we needed be agile and able to move very quickly. For good reason, institutions of higher education do not have that ability because there is a lot of bureaucracy and red-tape. We decided that to create the best atmosphere and product for our players, we did not want to have the direct involvement of higher education in our leadership team.

However, we do still view institutions as a huge resource and opportunity for our players from an educational standpoint. It is essentially divided up. Universities are going to handle the educational side. We will handle the commercialized sports side. Everybody gets to stick to their strengths. In short, is there a direct link to HBCUs in our current model? No. However, we picked cities with that [HBCUs] in mind. Hopefully, a number of our players will be attending HBCUs while playing for the HBL.

Kassandra:  Since you moved away from the schools to the city model, what are the Title IX ramifications? Are there any?

Ricky:  I suppose we will not have the answer until we are truly up and running. As of today, we are very comfortable with the idea that the money we put into scholarships for our players is unlikely to be subject to Title IX. However, if it is we are not shying away from the possibility of doing a matching donation to an institution. However, I do not think it will be a problem.

Kassandra:  What has been some of the challenges in creating the HBL?

Ricky:  Undercapitalization is the biggest challenge for any startup, and we are no different.  However, with the addition of David [West], we are very quickly getting over that hurdle. Our biggest hurdle to date was the question of  – who is your basketball person? Andy, myself, the advisory board, and others who have been involved have great minds within sports business. However, no one played in the NBA or played college basketball as far as I am aware.  This was a continuous criticism. We were faced with the question of how could we look a family in the eye and say we know what is best for you in your basketball career? Therefore, it became my primary focus to answer that question.  David was at the top of my short list from day one.

Kassandra:  How did you get David West involved? What do you hope to gain from his involvement?

Ricky: I believe I waited all of seven minutes after he announced his retirement to begin the reach out process. We were very lucky to get him on board. Now we are able to say don’t take it from us, take it from this gentleman who played four years at Xavier, who had a successful 15-year career in the NBA, and who is a two-time NBA Champion with a college degree. 

Furthermore, David and his brother run one of the top AAU programs in the country. Therefore, he is intimately tied to the grassroots basketball community at the high school level. He is a “pros pro.”  You can ask anybody in the league whether, in the front office or players who played with or against him, everyone has a great deal of respect for David.  David thinks holistically about the development of players, bringing together both the basketball and educational side. David checks a lot of boxes that we did not have checked before getting him on board.

Kassandra:  Are there any other big names to fill any other positions in the works?

Ricky:  I do not know about filling positions per se within our leadership team.  However, as far as the next big names go, we are primarily focused on the first team operator, first team coach, and the first player.  We want to make big splashes with each of those firsts.

Kassandra:  Do you foresee issues with getting athletes interested in the HBL with the NBA G-League’s new program?

Background: This fall the NBA announced an alternative to college basketball for elite men’s basketball players. Elite players will have the option of receiving a “select-contract” valued at $125,000 to play in the NBA G-League.

Ricky: I do not see it as an issue for us. Most people have portrayed this as a potential negative for us, but I view it as a positive.  First and foremost, it proved that our compensation range is right on the mark. We were publicly saying that $50,000-$100,000 would be our salary range.  We had internally discussed exceeding $100,00 in the right situation.   Shortly after the G-League announced the $125,000 “select-contract” we announced our maximum salary range would increase to $150,000. In a way, it set the market for us and validated what we were thinking from an economic and business standpoint.

I appreciate the G-League providing another option for players, but it is still playing into the false choice of education or compensation. We are focused on education and compensation. Being that we are offering education and a higher maximum salary than the G-Leauge, we will be an attractive option to players. When you compare the cities that we are going to be in with the cities that the G-League is in, our cities will likely be more attractive to players looking to build a brand.

Kassandra:  The players will be able to be represented by agents. Is the HBL going to have its own certification process for agents?

Ricky:  We are going to have a certification program for HBL agents. Agents often get a bad reputation. There are some bad apples out there. However, not all agents are bad. Since the players are at a very vulnerable time in the life, we are going to have protections in place. We are going to do our best to protect the players.  Also, we are going to have a certification process for financial advisors as well. The NFLPA has a registration system for financial advisors, and we will have a similar program to ensure that we know who is helping with the financial management of our players.

Kassandra:  Where do you see the HBL in five years?

Ricky: I would like to see us up to between 24 and 30 teams.  I would like to see us crossing into at least the $500 million and potentially 1 billion dollar threshold in terms of revenue generated by the league. Hopefully, by year five, we will be the primary destination of 50 or more percent of the top 25 players every year from every recruiting class.

Also, five years down the road our first recruiting class will have graduated. Hopefully, every one of our players whether in the NBA, in an international league, or doing something outside of basketball will be having a successful career. An outcome for us is not limited to success in the NBA. If we have a player who plays for us for five years and graduates with a four-year degree and a master degree who starts his own business with the salary received from the HBL, that would be a wonderful outcome as well.

Kassandra: What is the HBL Foundation?

Ricky:  The HBL foundation website launched on Tuesday, November 27th. The foundation is primarily focused on providing educational opportunities, resources, and support for students in need that are often overlooked.  The foundation will have both an athlete scholarship fund and a business of sports scholarship fund for non-athletes looking to enter sectors that service the sports world. Sectors such as athletic training, journalism, or sports management.

Unfortunately, in the current system, if you accept a traditional college athletic scholarship, it comes with a lot of ties that are often detrimental to the player. The player has to maintain both academic and athletic eligibility. This often means that the player cannot get a job to cover any cost the player or the player’s family may have while in college.  It also means that the player is pretty much at the mercy of their coach. We want to create an alternative option where our scholarship fund (both the one for athletes and for non-athletes) can cover that cost of attendance.

The foundation will also create original content. The content will be for middle and high school students who are preparing for athletic careers in college and those who wish to pursue a sports-related major.   We are excited about being able to create that content and make it easily accessible and free to people that would otherwise be overlooked.

Kassandra:  Do you have a funny story that you experienced while creating the HBL that you would like to share?

Ricky:  I have a few. While David [West] was making his final decision as to whether he was going to join the HBL he presented at a conference. Afterward, a woman came up to him and told him a story about unlikely allies. It is now a rather amusing thing between David and me for the following reasons. David finished his career in Oakland playing for the Golden State Warriors. Andy lives in the bay area and is a Warriors fan. I live in Cleveland and am a Cavaliers fan.

During the entire development of the HBL, it has been the Warriors and the Cavs in every NBA finals. Andy and I have had a running rivalry. The very thought that it would be somebody on the Golden State Warriors who beat my Cavs the last two years who would end up working with the HBL and helping us move to the next level is funny. Furthermore, it makes David’s story about unlikely allies rather fitting.  I found it to be very amusing for what ultimately happened.

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.

NBA G-League Gets New Talent While NCAA Stays in the Stoneage

NBA G-League

On Thursday, the NBA shocked the sports world when they announced an alternative to the unjust “one-and-done” rule.  The “one-and-done” rule mandates that NBA draft entrants be at least 19 years old or be one year removed from high school. The rule arbitrarily requires NBA hopefuls to attend college before attempting their dream of playing in the NBA.   That unwarranted requirement is now over, at least for some. The NBA will now allow select elite athletes who may not wish to attend college to enter the NBA G-League (the NBA’s minor league) and receive a “select-contract” worth $125,000. To qualify, athletes must be at least 18 years old and ineligible for the NBA draft.

Until Thursday, NBA hopefuls could have no affiliation with the NBA until they satisfied the “one-and-done” rule. This unfortunately left collegiate athletics as the only viable avenue to the NBA.  As a result, many elite basketball stars played in college for one year and then left for the NBA draft.  This phenomenon has been a major point of contention in the “pay-for-play” debate and became a focal point of the FBI’s investigation into college basketball last September. The FBI’s investigation exposed that many college basketball players are paid and given incentives for their athleticism, as they should be.   In reaction to the FBI’s investigation, the NCAA created the Commission on College Basketball (Commission) to “fix” college basketball or probably more correctly to maintain their unjustified control.

The Purpose of the Commission on College Basketball

The Commission was led by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with the purpose of “improving integrity” in college basketball.  In April, the Commission issued a report and made several recommendations to “improve” college basketball.  The Commission arguably failed to adequately address many of issues in college basketball. However, the Commission did make some worthwhile recommendations.

One of those recommendations was to abolish the “one-and-done” rule.  The commission also urged the NBA and NCAA to create alternatives for athletes who do not wish to attend college.  The NBA answered that request with the implementation of this new program in the G-League.  Basketball players now have an option to play professionally that does not require college attendance.  While the NBA deserves credit for providing this new option, it does not remedy all of the problems in college athletics.

While the G-League Program is Great, it is Not the “Great Fix” for College Athletics

As great as this new program is, it is not the cure to all of the issues in college athletics.   Basketball players have an option outside of college athletics, but the injustices that plague college athletics is still prevalent.  Athletes who really want to attend college will continue to suffer.  Universities, coaches, and other sport administrative officials are still set to make unseemly amounts of money while the athletes are unjustly limited to a cost-of-attendance scholarship.  The cost-of-attendance cap unfairly prohibits college athletes from receiving the full value their athletic prowess could afford them.

Furthermore, this new program does not absolve the NCAA of its need to address the absurdity of its rules.   College-bound basketball players are still subject to the arbitrary “amateurism” rules that preclude “impermissible benefits.”  Therefore, a college-bound player may not receive assistance that could be misconstrued as an “impermissible benefit” no matter how dire their need.  Also, a player still cannot monetize his or her likeness with a YouTube channel showcasing their athleticism without jeopardizing their eligibility.  Accordingly, college athletes must choose between education and financial gain.

The NBA Still Retained Control

In addition to the control the NCAA has, the NBA unfoundedly asserted more control with the new program. The NBA retained control by making the program open only to “elite” basketball players.  Therefore, the NBA or an entity chosen by the NBA will determine who is “elite” enough to play in the G-League. This arbitrarily gives the NBA final say in who gets to exercise the option to play professionally.  The opportunity to play in the G-League should be open to any aspiring basketball player.  There should be a traditional tryout where the best players make the team.

Likewise, the NBA retained control by not allowing athletes to once again go straight to the NBA.  Aspiring professional basketball players should have that option.  Again, the NBA deserves credit for creating a viable option for aspiring professional players.  However, much work remains to truly make the system fair.

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.

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.

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.

Texas Tech Football fans weigh in on QB battle

Texas Tech Football

Texas Tech Football is notorious for offensive weapons, but the quarterback battle throughout fall camp is presenting some telling storylines.

From Rodney Allison to Patrick Mahomes, Texas Tech Football has produced some notoriously potent quarterbacks in program history. The level of talent that’s filtered through the position at Texas Tech has also created a restless fanbase, which expects its gunslingers to be able to extend plays on the ground, and thread needles like Aaron Rodgers.

In 2017, Texas Tech Football was left with a substantial void due to the early departure of Mahomes to the NFL. That left Nic Shimonek as the anticipated starter, and just as it seemed he was finding his stride, fans grew restless because the void Mahomes left was just too substantial. Two seasons removed from the end of the Mahomes Era, and Red Raider quarterbacks are in an advantageous situation, as it presents the guys competing with an opportunity to carve their own legacies without the comparisons and criticisms Mahomes’ backups faced.

Heading into the offseason last season, the narrative was that if Jett Duffey didn’t start at quarterback, head coach Kliff Kingsbury was done at Texas Tech.

Since finishing an impressive senior season at Mansfield High School with over 4,000 yards of total offense and 48 touchdowns, Duffey has had to work his way back into the fold at Tech. Many expected Duffey to emerge past Shimonek to compete for the QB2 spot in 2016, but an investigation sidelined him through 2017 season, where he burned his redshirt year. This put McLane Carter in a spot to earn reps with the first-team offense, and in Tech’s victory over Texas last season, Carter was able to demonstrate his value in a trial by fire situation that carried confidence well into Spring Ball.

In the Spring Game back in April, Carter finished 11-of-19 overall for 139 yards, followed by Duffey, who threw 11-of-15 for 89 yards, and Alan Bowman, who finished 7-of-12 for 76 yards.

While passes and receptions were on-par between all three quarterbacks, rumor has it, Carter has been spending a lot of time with the first-team offense. Although, Coach Kingsbury has been adamant since Media Days that all quarterbacks will receive equal time vying for the QB1 spot, brief snapshots could carry hidden meanings.

But Kingsbury isn’t worried about the quarterback spot, and nor should he be.

“Just because they’re young or inexperienced, to me, you never know how they’re going to respond,” Kingsbury said. “I wouldn’t say [I’m] nervous. I think excited to not really know who it is, and be able to work with those guys and try to have one guy really step up.”

While practices have been limited to a few minutes for media, and scrimmages have been limited to short clips, it’s growing apparent that the progression needle is moving towards one quarterback in particular–McLane Carter.

What’s more, Texas Tech fans seem to believe Carter is the front-runner, too. Texas Tech Football fans were polled on Monday, and 82 percent of the 150 votes came in for McLane Carter, with Alan Bowman and Jett Duffey receiving nine percent of votes each.

Jett Duffey is a dual-threat quarterback who was billed to become Patrick Mahomes reincarnated, but unfortunately, the biggest issue raised regarding Duffy has been in his mechanics.

According to the Lubbock-Avalanche Journal, first-year c0-offensive coordinator Kevin Johns discussed what the requirements were to fill the QB1 spot, “Manage the offense. Take care of the football. Get us in the right play. Move the offense down the field. Be smart on third down. Things like that.” Said Johns, who also elaborated that Shimonek’s successor had to “Play smart. We don’t need anyone to necessarily win the game, but they can’t lose the game.”

While Duffey’s reps in front of media have been limited, his interceptions in practices have raised some questions, increasing the belief that experience will win out when Kingsbury announces who will start against Ole Miss on Sept. 1 at NRG Stadium.

As Texas A&M head coach Jimbo Fisher said on an SEC preview show, “The team will tell you [who your quarterback is].”  Coach Kingsbury is looking for a player who’s reactionary; a player who leads in every category, and moreover, a player who encourages progress and productivity by every player on the team–including quarterbacks.

And as Texas Tech Football fans have experienced in the past, backups are always one play away from reopening the doors on the competition.

 

 

 

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.