The Sock 'Em, Bust 'Em Board Because that's our custom

Knight right?

 

The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics is a, let’s say, divisive entity.

You’ll find people who roll their eyes and dismiss what the group does, because it’s essentially an able-minded think tank that doesn’t have a lot of power but insists on a great many things. It can’t make changes, but it can encourage them, and there is a history of tangible results.

Some think the KC is to critical of too many things and operates with a spirit that disapproves of what’s bad but also good about college sports. Others think the names and brains that assemble are known and bright and should, at the minimum, receive due attention.

You can search Twitter or Google and see what I mean.

But on Monday, the folks gathered in Washington to do their thing, and the headline might not have been the biggest or best news to come out of the meeting.

The press release came with a flashy headline.

KNIGHT COMMISSION CALLS FOR NCAA TO TRANSFORM ITS GUIDELINES FOR MARCH MADNESS REVENUES TO BETTER SUPPORT COLLEGE ATHLETES AND PROTECT FINANCIAL INTEGRITY

Simple enough, and not unprecedented from the group. Previously, it was recommended that some money from the College Football Playoff go to concussion research.

But this suggestion seemed to reach a bit too far. A bit.

The Commission recommended that 100 percent of NCAA revenues received by institutions should be restricted to supporting athletes’ education and providing them with appropriate health and safety benefits and protections. Under current guidelines, just 25 percent of NCAA revenues received by institutions are restricted to support athletes’ education and provide other benefits.

That was not thunder you heard Monday. That was a collective sigh across Division I athletic and administrative offices. Now, maybe the goal is to get people to go, “Whoa! A hundred percent? The NCAA keeps too much right now, but you’re saying it should keep none?” To which the KC would reply, “Maybe you’re right. Let’s talk about this.”

And then they’re off.

At the minimum, it’s a reminder what a racket the NCAA Tournament is. At best, it’s a way to help schools fund some of the initiatives conferences like the Big 12 have recently adopted, because only major leagues and major programs can afford to do such things.

But, to me, the bigger news was much deeper in the notes, because it’s something we’ve wondered about for some time without seeing any progress.

The meeting also featured a panel examining NCAA amateurism rules and potential changes. Gabe Feldman, associate professor of law and director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University, proposed a model that would eliminate some of the current restrictions on college athletes using their names, images or likenesses (NIL) for financial gain. Feldman argued that a new system that permits “non-game” related NIL payments, such as commercial endorsements, would not “unduly interfere with the NCAA’s core goals” and that these changes are more appropriate for college sports than a “pay for play” model.

Former Stanford football player Rollins Stallworth, who has served as chair of the Pac-12 Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, expressed support for the proposal.

Feldman’s proposal would require a new compliance and enforcement system. Joel Litvin, a former NBA executive, discussed the NBA’s strict rules for player endorsements to prevent salary cap manipulation for its 30 teams. Professional leagues’ salary caps, and related rules and rigorous enforcement, are in place to maintain competitive balance. Litvin and another expert panelist, law professor Stephen Ross, said opening up player endorsement opportunities for college athletes will likely generate major enforcement challenges but that there are potential enforcement alternatives that could help mitigate those challenges.

The Knight Commission agreed to continue to explore these complex issues, recognizing that such endorsement opportunities might exist for only a small percentage of the more than half-a million college athletes.

Feldman’s proposal — right here — would make it possible for student-athletes to engage in endorsements, autograph signings and even specialized television and radio programs but also to have representation in securing those deals. That’s where things get slippery and where the NCAA and even the KC slam or tap the brakes, but Feldman counters with the apparent hypocrisy. The NCAA has long conceded that commercialization and amateurism can co-exist, just not with respect to student-athletes. The perceived—and actual—unfairness in this arrangement grows with each new television deal, coaching contract, and facility renovation, while the selective and blanket restrictions on student-athletes are maintained.

I loved that part. “You might disagree, but you might also want to look in the mirror.” Beyond that, the proposal is influential and talks its way around supposed barriers by insisting, among many things, student-athletes won’t be as tempted to do wrong and endanger their eligibility, and college and amateur sports can remain separate without jeopardizing the NCAA’s (bogus) educational mission. The absence of an above-the-board market creates an environment where actual exploitation is more, not less, likely.

Feldman concedes it won’t be easy and schools will have to make changes — his “new compliance and enforcement system” — and that brings this back to an important conclusion: Just because it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, just because it won’t be easy doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.

Worst case?

“Whoa! This is radical. I don’t know …”

“OK, so let’s talk about it.”