Should There be an Increase in Women College Coaches?

The women’s college basketball season is in full swing! The race to the Women’s Final Four has begun. Hopefully, the upcoming Final Four will be as exciting and as the last one. The 2018 Women’s Final Four was one of the most exciting college basketball has ever seen.  It was groundbreaking in the way its unpredictable nature reinvigorated the excitement of women’s college basketball. Each game was a thriller. The 2018 Women’s Final Four made history by way of viewership and attendance.  7.62 million people watched the series on ESPN.[i] The total attendance was 36,123 fans (which was an increase from 2017).[ii]  However, there was one area where the 2018 Final Four was not groundbreaking or progressive and that is in the area of women college coaches.

Even though it was the premier women’s college basketball tournament, only one out of the four coaches were female.  The others were white males. UConn, Louisville, and Mississippi State all had male coaches, while the victor of the tournament Notre Dame, had a female coach. The makeup of the coaches in the tournament highlights an unfortunate reality in many women’s collegiate sports. It highlights the lack of women coaches in college athletics.

The Number of Female Coaches is Decreasing

A study conducted by the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota and the Alliance of Women Coaches found that only 20 percent of all college coaching positions are held by women.[iii] However, the percentage of head coaches in women’s Division 1 college basketball is roughly 56 percent.[iv] Unfortunately, the number of female head coaches in Division 1 women’s basketball is declining. In 2017, the data showed that for the past six years the number of female head basketball coaches decreased by 11 percent.[v] The number of male head coaches in women’s basketball increased by 33 percent.[vi]

Additionally, there is a lack of female head coaches in other sports as well.  For example, in NCAA Division 1 track and field women only hold 10 head coaching positions compared to the 83 held by men.[vii] Similarly, in cross-country women hold only 17 head coaching positions compared the 86 held by men.    The overall lack of female coaches in college athletics leads to two questions.[viii]  First, why are there so few female college coaches? Second, what should be done to increase the number of female college coaches?

Why is There a Lack of Female College Coaches?

There are several factors that contribute to the lack of female college coaches.

Factor 1

The first factor and probably the most important is the nature of the job. Coaching is a very time intensive and demanding job.  To effectively coach, one must be able to give adequate amounts of time to recruiting, mentoring, and actual coaching. Each of these aspects of the job is extremely time intensive.  Furthermore, coaching requires an extensive amount of travel. The time and travel demands do not lend itself to a woman who may have just started a family or who wants to start a family.  Though it is not impossible, it is very difficult to have young children and be fully immersed in coaching the way the job requires.  Hence, this one factor has a trickle-down effect to the other factors.

Factor 2

Unfortunately, the nature of the job does not lend itself to women who have young children or to women who plan to have children. As a result, the field has been left to men and the majority of coaching jobs are filled by men.  As previously stated, the decline of female head coaches in women’s basketball has led to an increase in male head coaches.  Why are men better able to navigate the world of coaching? One reason is that in many cases it is easier for men to balance their family life with work. In many cases, women take on the brunt of family life and caring for children as society dictates. Due to this, men often have more time to dedicate to the profession. Hence, this reality leads to the next factor.

Factor 3

Men dominate the field. Therefore, young female athletes do not get to see themselves represented as a coach. As a result, not many former female athletes go into coaching because they do not see it as an option. Even at the youth sports level, there are not many female coaches.  According to a study conducted by the Aspen Institute, only 22.5 percent of youth coaches were female.[ix] This number is down from the 28 percent in the previous study.[x] The lack of female coaches at the youth level is also likely low because women do not have the time to dedicate to it.

Increasing the Number of Female Coaches

Increasing the number of female collegiate coaches needs to start at the youth level. An increase of female coaches in youth sports will entice more women to go into coaching.  Being coached by a woman at a young age will allow young female athletes to see themselves represented at the coaching level. It will make them believe that they can do it too.  The resulting new interest in coaching that young female athletes will have will put more women in the pipeline for coaching positions.

Additionally, there are things that can be done administratively to help increase the number of female coaches. Those things include implementing the Eddie Robinson Rule and the Judy Sweet Rule.  However, those measures would not mean much without increasing the number of youth female coaches.  Therefore, increasing the number of youth female coaches is necessary to get future generations of women into coaching.

[i]  2018 Women’s Final Four Make History in Columbus, NCAA Division 1 Women’s Basketball

(Apr. 13, 2018),https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2018-04-13/2018-womens-final-four-makes-history-columbus.

[ii]  Id.

[iii] Manie Robinson, Clemson, University of South Carolina get a C on Coaching Staff Gender Equality, Greenville News (July 13, 2018, 8:50 AM), https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/sports/2018/07/13/clemson-usc-sports-earn-average-grades-gender-equality/777088002/.

[iv] Layne Saliba, Female Head Women’s Basketball Coaches in NCAA on the Decline, The Red & Black (Apr. 25, 2017),  https://www.redandblack.com/sports/female-head-women-s-basketball-coaches-in-ncaa-on-the/article_34e21388-29c2-11e7-a5ad-c7589fe72cce.html.

[v] Id.

[vi]Id.

[vii] Erin Strout, American Running Needs More Female Coaches, Outside (Sept. 14, 2018), https://www.outsideonline.com/2342711/why-we-need-more-female-coaches.

[viii] Id.

[ix]  State of Play 2018 Trends and Developments (2018), available at https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.30622070.81258157.1541265952-407175075.1523447928.

[x]State of Play 2017 Trends and Developments (2017), available at https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/12/FINAL-SOP2017-report.pdf.

Dewan Hernandez’s Reinstatement Case Exposes NCAA’s True Purpose

The NCAA demonstrated their most important values when they failed to reinstate the University of Miami basketball star, Dewan Hernandez. Hernandez is one of the 19 basketball players implicated in the college basketball scandal due to his alleged relationship with aspiring agent Christian Dawkins. Due to the alleged relationship, Hernandez’s eligibility was put into jeopardy. Although there was little to no evidence that Hernandez received an “impermissible benefit” from Dawkins, the NCAA still refused to reinstate him. As a result of the NCAA’s decision, Hernandez decided to withdraw from school and prepare for the 2019 NBA draft.

How does an organization that seeks to ensure that every college athlete is able to obtain their degree while playing their sport justify putting Hernandez in the position where he felt it was best to leave school and prepare for the pros? The answer is simple. The NCAA’s highest priority lies in the last phrase of their basic purpose.

The NCAA’s Basic Purpose

Article 1.3.1 of the NCAA Division I Manual states the NCAA’s basic purpose. The NCAA’s basic purpose is to “maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body, and by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.”[i] While this purpose may be noble in theory, Hernandez’s case reveals what is really important to the NCAA. What is really important to the NCAA is the last phrase of their purpose regarding maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.

Dewan Hernandez’s Reinstatement Case

In practice, the NCAA’s basic purpose translates to the NCAA stopping at nothing to maintain the distinction between college and professional sports. Even if means failing at maintaining the college athlete as an integral part of the student body and punishing an underserving athlete. Hernandez’s case is the perfect example of this.

During the FBI’s investigation of Dawkins, an email mentioning Hernandez was discovered. This email put Hernandez’s eligibility in jeopardy because it contained a plan where Dawkins was planning to give Hernandez a series of payments over a specified period of time. However, there was no evidence that such payments were ever made, that Hernandez agreed to take the payments, or that Hernandez even knew of Dawkins’ plan.

In spite of the lack of evidence, the NCAA still levied a heavy penalty on Hernandez. The NCAA mandated that Hernandez continue to sit out the remainder of this season and forty percent of next season. Why would an organization that truly cares about “maintaining the athlete as an integral part of the student body” force an athlete into a position where his best option is to withdraw from school and prepare for the NBA draft?

The NCAA’s Most Important Purpose is to Keep College Athletics “Amateur”

The answer is simple. The NCAA’s true values revolve around doing whatever is necessary to maintain a distinction between college and professional sports, even when it is not what is best for the athlete. In spite of the lack of evidence, the NCAA still denied Hernandez’s reinstatement. They made that decision for no other reason than to re-affirm the point that college athletes are to receive no benefit outside of what is authorized by the NCAA.

Hernandez’s case is unfortunately not the only time that the NCAA has stopped at nothing to make that point, even when it hurt an underserving athlete. Remember the very unfortunate story of Donald De La Haye. De La Haye, was a kicker for the Univerisity of Central Florida (UCF) football team. He had successfully monetized his YouTube videos. The NCAA ordered him to stop making videos that featured him as a “student-athlete” or be deemed ineligible. In that case, the NCAA proved that they cared less about maintaining De La Haye as an integral part of the student body and more about maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.

College Athletics Does not Benefit From the Decision in Hernandez’s Case

There is no logical argument that can be made for how the NCAA’s decision in Hernandez’s case benefits college athletics. How does it benefit college athletics to force a player to leave school early for the NBA draft? Especially in this case where there is no hard evidence that he violated any NCAA bylaws. College athletics gains nothing from this decision. The only benefit is to the NCAA who once again gets to reaffirm its bogus principle of “amateurism.”

[i]NCAA Manual, (2018), available at http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D119.pdf.


State Legislator Proposes Bill to Pay College Athletes: Change is Coming

Alston v.NCAA ruling on student athletes educational benefits

Change is inevitable for college athletics as another legislator has made a move in support of college athletes rights. Washington State representative, Drew Stokesbary, has introduced a bill that would allow college athletes in Washington to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The current college athletics system is extremely unfair to the athletes who propel the billion dollar industry. Everyone can make money, except for the labor force. Coaches sign million dollar contracts.  Schools and conferences garner million dollar television deals.  Meanwhile, athletes are only able to receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship. A scholarship is invaluable. However, athletes should not be limited exclusively to that form of compensation. This is especially true for athletes who could garner endorsement deals.

Come on Now, Everyone Should be Able to Profit off Their Own Name, Image, and Likeness

The ability to capitalize off one’s own name, image, and likeness would seem to be one of the fundamental tenants of American capitalism. For the most part, it is except in the context of college athletics. Currently, college athletes are unable to profit off their name, image, and likeness without being subject to losing their athletic eligibility. Meanwhile, schools are able to market the athletes however they see fit, without the athletes receiving a dime above their scholarship. This is exactly what the bill seeks to change for college athletes in Washington state.

If Stokesbary’s bill is signed into law, college athletes in Washington will be able to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The athletes will be free to enter endorsement deals without fear of losing their eligibility. Whether this bill or some variation of it will actually become law remains to be seen. However, that is not the most important part of the introduction of the bill. The introduction of the bill is important because it proves that attitudes are continuing to change regarding college athletes’ rights. With a change in attitudes, real change is sure to follow.

Support is Growing for College Athlete Rights

More and more people are starting to acknowledge the injustices of the current college athletics system. Accordingly, the current model is being challenged on all fronts. Washington state appears to be leading the way in challenging it legislatively. However, last year a congressman from North Carolina called for college athletes to be allowed to profit off their name, image, and likeness. Representative Mark Walker did this in hopes of sparking a national debate on the issue.

The current model is being challenged in court in Alston v. NCAA. College sports enthusiasts eagerly await federal district court judge Wilken’s decision on whether the NCAA and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences are violating federal antitrust laws by capping scholarships to cost-of-attendance. If the plaintiffs are successful, major changes to college athletics may be seen.  Either way, the losing side will surely appeal. It is possible that the case could reach the Supreme Court, should they chose to hear the case.

Similarly, the current college athletics model is being challenged by start-up leagues like the Historical Basketball League (HBL). The HBL is a start-up basketball league. The HBL seeks to offer a better option by compensating its players while ensuring they receive a free quality education. With all of the challenges being lodged at the current college athletics system, change is sure to come one way or another.

Trevor Lawrence Should be Able to Receive his Worth While at Clemson

Trevor Lawerence

On Monday, Clemson decisively defeated Alabama for the College Football National Championship. The Tigers overcame the Crimson Tide 44-16. Not only did Clemson defeat the almighty “Bama,” Clemson sent a strong message defeating them by 28 points. Leading Clemson to victory was true freshman quarterback Trevor Lawerence. Lawerence undisputedly emerged as the star of the game. He threw three touchdown passes and amassed 347 passing yards. Accordingly, Lawerence’s performance was truly unprecedented. He defeated the most powerful team in college football who boasted a Heisman Trophy candidate quarterback.

After the game, sports fans and commentators began criticizing the fact that Lawerence is ineligible for the upcoming NFL draft. Critics argued that it is unfair that players do not have the option to enter the draft when they see fit. Similarly, they argue that is not fair that elite athletes are told when they may go professional and make money off of their athletic abilities.

Division 1 college football is a billion dollar industry. However, the athletes who propel that industry receive essentially no compensation above a cost-of-attendance scholarship. However, the coaches make millions of dollars each year. Perhaps, the real issue is not when Lawerence or other similarly situated players should be eligible for the NFL draft. Perhaps the real issue is why playing professionally is the only option such players have to make money for their athletic abilities?

Why is Trevor Lawerence Ineligible for the NFL Draft?

Lawerence is ineligible for the draft because the NFL’s rules say a player is not draft eligible until he is three years removed from his high school graduating class. Proponents of the rules argue that they are in place to protect future NFL prospects from prematurely entering the league before they are physically ready. However, opponents believe that it is unfair that Lawrence and other NFL prospects do not have the option to start their professional careers whenever they see fit. Accordingly, fans and critics argue that Lawerence and other NFL prospects should have the ability to chose when to start their NFL careers.

Perhaps elite athletes should have the ability to freely decide when to turn pro. However, this issue is not the real injustice. The real injustice is the fact that elite NFL prospects cannot make money off their athletic abilities while in college. This is especially true given the fact that the coaches make millions off of the labor of the athletes.

Coaches Make Millions Off of the Labor of Elite Talent, While the Talent has to Wait for a  Professional Career That May Never Manifest.

Take the two coaches who were in the championship game for instance. Those two coaches were Clemson’s Dabo Swinney and Alabama’s Nick Saban. Saban’s base salary was $7.5 million. He made an additional $400,000 for appearing in the CFP semifinal game. Even though the Crimson Tide lost, Saban still cleared an additional $600,000 just for appearing in the championship game. Swinney’s base salary for the season was $6 million.  He received an additional $200,000 for his CFP semifinal appearance.  Since Clemson won the championship, Swinney will receive an additional $250,000.

Meanwhile, the labor force (the football players) that makes these incredible salary numbers possible receives a very small amount in comparison. A scholarship for a college education is invaluable. However, when compared to coaches salaries, television deals, and other sponsorships, does it really seem fair that athletes are limited to their scholarship?

The Focus Should be on Lawernce’s Inability to Profit off his Athleticism in College Instead of on his Inability to go to the NFL

It is not fair for athletes to have wait to reach the NFL to be adequately compensated for their athleticism. What if a player suffers a career ending injury before he is eligible for the NFL? Such a player would never have the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athletic ability.  It is for this reason that the conversation should be focused on college athletes rights to receive adequate compensation in college.

Yes, an injured player may have a degree.  It is also true that the degree could yield high earnings for the player in the future. However, the injured player would still have missed the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athleticism in college.  Meanwhile, his coach made millions in games that the injured player’s labor largely contributed to.

There is a lot of money in Division 1 college football.  This is evident from the coaches salaries.  More of that money should be funneled down to the labor force who makes it all possible.  It would be nice if Lawerence had the ability to opt for the NFL. However, it would be better if he could receive more for the fruits of his labor while in college. At the very least, Lawerence and other similarly situated athletes should be allowed to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness.  Therefore, the conversation should be about Lawerence’s ability to receive his worth while in college instead of his ability to go to the NFL.

UCF: CFB Playoffs Can Never Be Better than March Madness Until Cinderella Gets In

The College Football Playoffs committee’s failure to pick the University of Central Florida (UCF) for the second year in a row is proof that the tournament will never be as exciting as March Madness. Every year when March Madness begins fans are at the edge of their seats waiting to see what likely championship contender will fall prey to the tournament’s “Cinderella” team. For example, in last years tournament, the very unlikely University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) knocked off the University of Virginia. The emergence of a “Cinderella” team is a major part of what makes March Madness so exciting.  However, the College Football Playoffs (CFP) is unlikely to ever experience the excitement of a  “Cinderella” team. The committee’s failure to give UCF a bid in the tournament for two years is proof of this.

For the last two seasons, UCF has been unstoppable. UCF finished their 2017 and 2018 seasons undefeated for a combined 25-0 record. Despite having two perfect seasons and knocking off Auburn after they beat Alabama, UCF was not extended the opportunity to be the possible “Cinderella” team in the College Football Playoffs (CFP) either year. If UCF beats LSU in the Fiesta Bowl on Dec. 30 they would have defeated the SEC elite in back to back seasons. With two perfect seasons, why is UCF being overlooked? The structure of the CFP is to blame.

Participants in the college football playoffs are chosen by the CFP committee.  The committee considers a number of factors. Those factors are not favorable to teams, like UCF, who are not in Power Five conferences. Accordingly, the CFP structure does not allow a team such as UCF to be eligible for the tournament no matter how perfect their season. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the CFP will ever experience the excitement of a “Cinderella” team swooping through the tournament and upsetting the most likely championship contender. This is precisely why the College Football Playoffs needs to be expanded to include more teams.

College Football Playoffs Structure Neglects Non-Power Five Schools

General success during the football season does not equate to automatic CFP eligibility – obviously. The CFP committee considers several factors in addition to on-field performance.  The committee considers the number of games lost, the point spread in games, and the strength of each schools schedule. The strength of the schedule is judged based on the teams each school faces. Schools with tougher schedules are given more weight during CFP selections.

In most cases, schools in the Power Five conferences are considered to be the tougher schools. Due to this, schools that are not in Power Five conferences, like UCF,  are unlikely to get a real chance at the CFP. Group of Five schools, such as UCF,  find it difficult to schedule games with Power Five schools.  The lack of such games on the schedule makes it extremely difficult for Group of Five schools to clinch a spot in the CFP. This is exactly where UCF fell short in the CFP considerations.  A substantial amount of UCF’s victories were not against what is considered a “strong” school.

Group of Five Schools Must Face the “Right” Power Five School

It is not sufficient for a Group of Five School to face just any Power Five school. The school must face the “right” Power Five school.  This is also evidenced by UCF.  Over their last two seasons, UCF successfully faced the University of Maryland of the Big 10 and the University of Pittsburgh of the ACC.  However, these games were not enough to give UCF a leg up in the strength of schedule category.

Some may argue that UCF should have been given serious consideration by the CFP committee for the 2018 CFP based on their win against Auburn in last year’s Peach Bowl.  Auburn beat Alabama in last year’s SEC championship.  Alabama went on to win the CFP last year. Accordingly, some argued that UCF could possibly be defending the CFP title this year. Unfortunately, the fact that UCF defeated Auburn in last year’s Peach Bowl had no bearing on the CFP committee’s considerations in 2018.

However, that did not stop fans from fantasizing about what would have happened if UCF had been given their due. Some fans made the logical leap that UCF may have defeated Alabama in the CFP if given the opportunity. Some UCF fans went as far as to attempt to bait Alabama into facing UCF to settle the debate regarding who is the true national champion. As exciting as that game would be, it will probably never happen.

Since Such a Match-up is Unlikely to Happen, the CFP will Never be as Exciting as March Madness

Since the CFP structure does not favor “underdog” teams, the tournament will always have a certain level of predictability. A tournament that is too predictable simply is not exciting. That is the beauty of the March Madness tournament, its unpredictable nature.  Yes, there are teams that are in it every year. Teams such as North Carolina, Duke, and Kentucky are almost certain to make an appearance every year.  At the same time, any of those teams could get knocked off by the most unlikely opponent.

For example, in 2012 the underdog Norfolk State University beat Missouri.  Missouri was heavily slated to go to the Final Four and was unpredictably knocked off by the most unlikely opponent. Games like that are the excitement of the March Madness Tournament. The CFP is unlikely to ever know that excitement as long as underdogs like UCF are never given a chance to play on the CFP stage. For this reason, the CFP should be expanded to give more teams an opportunity to play on college football’s grandest stage. As long as the qualifications for CFP consideration remain, the CFP will never be as exciting as March Madness.

College Football Players Are Not Obligated to Play in Bowl Games

Will Grier Bowl Games Sitting West Virginia

Why do fans expect an “amateur” football player to put his career and livelihood on the line for what amounts to an exhibition game? On Saturday, West Virginia University announced that starting quarterback Will Grier will not be participating in the Camping World Bowl game against Syracuse. His decision not to participate in bowl games to focus on preparation for the NFL Draft did not sit well with some college football fans. He joined the list of more than a dozen players who will skip their teams’ bowl games.

Grier made the following statement informing fans of his decision.

Fans have no right to be upset with unpaid “amateur” athletes for choosing to further their professional careers.  After all is that not what a major part of the college experience is all about, learning to make tactical business decisions to be better professionally.  Grier did just that.  He made a tactical business decision to protect his potential professional career by not subjecting himself to injury in the bowl game.

Furthermore, Grier is slated to be a first or second-round draft pick. Would it really make sense for Grier to jeopardize his NFL draft potential by playing in a bowl game? The answer is simple. No, it would not make sense.

The Minimal Reward is Not Worth the Risk

The risk of injury in bowl games simply is not worth it for a college football player with a high NFL Draft potential. Bowl participants receive what amounts to very little for their participation. Participants receive a bowl gift and bragging rights for a year. Bowl gifts are nice and fun. However, they are minuscule when compared to the salaries and bonuses that coaches receive for bowl participation. This is especially true for a player like Will Grier who has already accomplished the pinnacle of what college sports and “amateurism” is supposed to be about – degree completion.

A degree is extremely valuable and can lead to a better life. Receipt of scholarship money to acquire a degree is very valuable as well.  However, a scholarship often does not equate to a college athlete’s full market value. Why should a player with the potential to finally receive their full fair market value for their athletic prowess risk a potential career ending injury in a game that is not going to compensate him up to his full value? Again, the answer is simple. No athlete should take that risk.  No fan should expect them to.

College Football Players Should not be Vilified for Opting Out of Bowl Games

Suiting up for any game carries a risk of injury. However, dissenting fans argue that it is only one more game, so the players should play. While it may only be one more game, the risk of injury is ever-present. In fact, the risk of injury is so prevalent that Grier is not the only player sitting out of a bowl game this year. In the past, players like Jaylon Smith and Jake Butt have suffered a serious injury which impacted their draft position.  Specifically, Ed Oliver, Rashan Gary, N’Keal Harry, Greedy Williams, and Grier’s teammate Yodny Cajuste are among those that have opted out of their respective bowl games this year to prepare for the NFL.

Some fans are equally upset by these decisions.  They argue that such players are being selfish and are quitting on their teams. However, that is not true. The players who opt out are not doing it to quit on their team. They are doing it to protect their future career prospects so that they may finally receive market value for their talents.  Despite what fans may think, college football players are not obligated to risk a career-ending injury for their viewing pleasure. Accordingly, players who opt out should not be vilified for their decision.

Players are not the Only Ones who Opt Out; Coaches do Too

Players are not the only ones who opt out of bowl games.  Coaches opt out as well.  Every year, several coaches leave their teams to take jobs at other schools in the midst of bowl game preparation.  Coaches are allowed to make business decisions for the betterment of their careers, just as players should be.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, college football is a business.  Therefore, all parties involved should be allowed to make decisions that are in the best interest of their careers. This freedom of movement may upset some fans. However, players and coaches should be able to make whatever decision is best for their career.

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.