WSJ -- "How NCAA Fumbled Control of College Football"

[4Q Basket Case]

Article from today's WSJ. If you aren't a subscriber, it'll be behind a paywall.

With One Colossal Mistake, the NCAA Lost Control of College Football - WSJ

Essentially says that the crucial mistake was in the early 1980s when the NCAA', led by Walter Byers, wouldn't negotiate a settlement with a group of schools led by Oklahoma and Georgia.

Byers balked at allowing expansion of TV broadcasts, reasoning that if fans had lots of options to watch games on TV, they wouldn't buy tickets to live games.

The short version is that the group, then called the Collegiate Football Association (CFA), wanted more money from the broadcast rights. Byers dug in and wouldn't budge a millimeter. The CFA sued and won. Which led eventually to the setup we have now in which television carries dozens of games every weekend and a few on most days of the week.

The article says that this was the beginning of the slippery slope that ends up where we are today.

I'm not sure I buy into that. I think the mistake was an arbitrary and totally inconsistent process, with no transparency whatsoever, by which the NCAA enforced amateur status of athletes and their academic eligibility. That led to every single school being well and truly ticked off at them, and eventually to lawsuits on pay-for-play. Then they caved on the transfer portal -- which, if the schools had united, could have been avoided. But by then, the NCAA had no political capital.

In today's litigious world, I'm not sure the pay-for-play could have been avoided. Perhaps delayed. Maybe with a little more structure around it. But it eventually would have stood up. A suit like O'Bannon was coming one way or the other.

Anyway, a fun look back.

 

[Elefantman]

I'm not sure I buy into that. I think the mistake was an arbitrary and totally inconsistent process, with no transparency whatsoever, by which the NCAA enforced amateur status of athletes and their academic eligibility. That led to every single school being well and truly ticked off at them, and eventually to lawsuits on pay-for-play. Then they caved on the transfer portal -- which, if the schools had united, could have been avoided. But by then, the NCAA had no political capital.

In today's litigious world, I'm not sure the pay-for-play could have been avoided. Perhaps delayed. Maybe with a little more structure around it. But it eventually would have stood up. A suit like O'Bannon was coming one way or the other.

Anyway, a fun look back.

Got to agree with you there. The TV rights lawsuit showed that the member schools could challenge the NCAA and show that the emperor had no clothes. Ever since, the NCAA has lost a bit of control year after year. Now the question is, what does the NCAA and a screen door on a submarine have in common??

 

[JDCrimson]

Agree, the NCAA could have adopted rules of civil procedure for enforcement of its rules as part of its membership contract with varying levels of sanctions for breach of its rules. But the lack of equity, transparency, and independent arbitration of its rules was doomed to fail when real money got involved in college athletics.

Not the NCAA, but I think a new association still has the opportunity to do what the NCAA should have done to modernize itself. Players wanting to play in the new league know and accept the rules going in.

None of this will ever work with one foot still the NCAA bathtub. Somehow the colleges believe there is some valuable cover from the NCAA and there is not.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Agree, the NCAA could have adopted rules of civil procedure for enforcement of its rules as part of its membership contract with varying levels of sanctions for breach of its rules. But the lack of equity, transparency, and independent arbitration of its rules was doomed to fail when real money got involved in college athletics.

Not the NCAA, but I think a new association still has the opportunity to do what the NCAA should have done to modernize itself. Players wanting to play in the new league know and accept the rules going in.

None of this will ever work with one foot still the NCAA bathtub. Somehow the colleges believe there is some valuable cover from the NCAA and there is not.

My next law school class will be my first.

During my banking career, I did, however, work with a lot of lawyers in a number of capacities. And I’ve slept with one for 37 years. So I’ve picked at least a smattering of the thought process.

Hoping maybe you can clear up a question I’ve had for a few months now: If the NCAA couldn’t enforce any of its rules, how is it that this new Collegiate Sports Commossion (or committee or whatever it calls itself) can?

IOW, from a legal perspective, what makes this CSC thing any different from the old NCAA?

 

[JDCrimson]

I dont know without knowing its governing structure. From what I can tell its a bandaid on something that needs to be blown up. And it sounds like its rule structure was written on a napkin...

I have not seen anybody want to undertake the work to form a new league. The is working about as well as a company in receivership...

My next law school class will be my first.

During my banking career, I did, however, work with a lot of lawyers in a number of capacities. And I’ve slept with one for 37 years. So I’ve picked at least a smattering of the thought process.

Hoping maybe you can clear up a question I’ve had for a few months now: If the NCAA couldn’t enforce any of its rules, how is it that this new Collegiate Sports Commossion (or committee or whatever it calls itself) can?

IOW, from a legal perspective, what makes this CSC thing any different from the old NCAA?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Article from today's WSJ. If you aren't a subscriber, it'll be behind a paywall.

With One Colossal Mistake, the NCAA Lost Control of College Football - WSJ

Essentially says that the crucial mistake was in the early 1980s when the NCAA', led by Walter Byers, wouldn't negotiate a settlement with a group of schools led by Oklahoma and Georgia.

Byers balked at allowing expansion of TV broadcasts, reasoning that if fans had lots of options to watch games on TV, they wouldn't buy tickets to live games.

I can't read the article because I'm cheap, but while I think that argument is probably the linchpin, there are at least two other important contributors that make this more of a three-legged stool:

1) the NCAA controlling access via TV
2) the NCAA being completely inconsistent in their application of punishments
3) Title IX

I mean let's not forget, the LAST ONE was always the key point brought up as to why players couldn't be paid from the millions they were generating for the schools. "You can't pay the football players from school revenue because you will run afoul of Title IX and be forced to pay the women's cross country team the same amount you're paying the football players."

This is where the idea that Title IX was about ONE THING (giving women access to athletic scholarships) and used to prevent ANOTHER is a lot of what's wrong with almost any law.

The short version is that the group, then called the Collegiate Football Association (CFA), wanted more money from the broadcast rights. Byers dug in and wouldn't budge a millimeter. The CFA sued and won. Which led eventually to the setup we have now in which television carries dozens of games every weekend and a few on most days of the week.

The article says that this was the beginning of the slippery slope that ends up where we are today.

(My intent is not to lecture you 4BQ but inform others who may not know here).

Well, the CFA was created by the non-Rose Bowl conferences and Independents because the NCAA had been bullying all of the schools with threats of probation, lack of access, etc, and they knew they'd get a better deal as a BLOC of schools than what eventually happened, which was Notre Dame basically getting their on national TV network every fall.

Byers was advised by his friends and lawyers and everyone, "Settle this, you're going to lose," and he was stubborn beyond words. And for those who haven't read the inside story (much of which Keith Dunnavant covered in his fine book, "The 50-Year Seduction"), this is it in summary:

In 1981, the CFA formed a committee to study how much $ they were leaving on the table letting the NCAA do the negotiations. The ABC contract was expiring at the end of the year, and the CFA wanted to know "if we offer you the big dogs more than 5x every two years, what will our take be?" Byers negotiated ASSUMING the CFA was part of the NCAA and when they collectively abstained from voting, an arrogant snit named Tom Hansen said, "... abstaining from voting does not give the CFA members the right to negotiate their own contract." Five days later, Hansen doubled down and - literally - threatened every CFA school who didn't comply with their demands with an NCAA probation." Journalists were even pointing out how Hansen and Byers were talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying, "This is a voluntary organization" and then threatening the schools with probation if they acted outside this "voluntary organization."

Then the CFA cut a lucrative deal with NBC - and Byers threatened every school who participated with banishment from the NCAA and (key point) lucrative bowls like the Orange and Sugar.

Uh....which ticked off the heads of those bowl games and created a three-way war.

The outcome was so obviously predetermined that Jim Spence and Roone Arledge were brought in to tell Byers to pull his head out his behind and cut a deal.

That's when NBC offered to pay half the attorney fees, and Byers came out with this lacking in self-awareness blast: "It’s a sad day for college sports if athletic policy is to be dictated by a television network and educational institutions surrender their independence of action to NBC’s corporate headquarters."

Yes, the guy dictating and threatening schools with probation turned right around and said "how dare THEY" in classic gaslighting fashion.

I'm not sure I buy into that. I think the mistake was an arbitrary and totally inconsistent process, with no transparency whatsoever, by which the NCAA enforced amateur status of athletes and their academic eligibility. That led to every single school being well and truly ticked off at them, and eventually to lawsuits on pay-for-play. Then they caved on the transfer portal -- which, if the schools had united, could have been avoided. But by then, the NCAA had no political capital.

I agree with you - I think - that Byers dropping the ball on the TV deal did play a role, but it wasn't the first pebble in the avalanche.

It MIGHT have been the biggest, yes, but there were other issues overlapping of similar importance.

 

[dtgreg]

The only reason for the NCAA to exist was to have a fig leaf as to why schools can't pay the players. Since Kavannaugh and the payment of players, I can't for the life of me understand how they still exist.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The only reason for the NCAA to exist was to have a fig leaf as to why schools can't pay the players. Since Kavannaugh and the payment of players, I can't for the life of me understand how they still exist.

Since they declined to prosecute any more eligibility cases, the NCAA has been reduced to an event-planning organization. They run the NCAA basketball tournaments and championship tournaments of one sort and another for small-college football and a bunch of non-revenue / Olympic sports. That's it.

 

[dtgreg]

Since they declined to prosecute any more eligibility cases, the NCAA has been reduced to an event-planning organization. They run the NCAA basketball tournaments and championship tournaments of one sort and another for small-college football and a bunch of non-revenue / Olympic sports. That's it.

I believe I could hire an event planner for less than $1,000,000,000 a year?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

There's another point I think gets lost in all of this.

YES, the NCAA did suffer the beginnings of a long-term diminution of power, but it's funny to me the schools forget that THEY ALSO LOST in that lawsuit....as in a HUGE amount of money. To give one example cited by Dunnavant, the Oklahoma Sooners (who led the revolt) were paid $1.4M for their 1982 game against Nebraska; two years later, they got far less than that from FOUR TV appearances that included Nebraska.

That lawsuit is what led to:
- the creation of ticket buying systems like Tide Pride, where people who will never be season ticket holders finance the program for years
- the Sun Bowl getting renamed to REMOVE THE NAME "Sun" and call it the John Hancock Bowl
- TV commercials spots plummeting overnight from $57K to $15K (and less if you waited)
- too damned many bowls (once a bowl met minimal qualifications, the NCAA couldn't risk losing more lawsuits, so they let the number rise....way too far)

And then there was this warning during the first trial from Walter Byers himself: deregulation of the market will lead to "the rise of a very narrow TV aristocracy," and if you can't see that's what ESPN has been where it concerns CFB for years, I can't help.

The schools lost something else in that lawsuit - namely, a 4-year, $180M contract with NBC. And the moment they won the lawsuit (financed in part by NBC), the Peacock network didn't want anything to do with CFB, which lowered the market demand and permitted CBS and ABC to drive down the overall bidding price at the exact same time sports rights fees were rising for every other sport.

 

[bamaga]

My next law school class will be my first.

During my banking career, I did, however, work with a lot of lawyers in a number of capacities. And I’ve slept with one for 37 years. So I’ve picked at least a smattering of the thought process.

Hoping maybe you can clear up a question I’ve had for a few months now: If the NCAA couldn’t enforce any of its rules, how is it that this new Collegiate Sports Commossion (or committee or whatever it calls itself) can?

IOW, from a legal perspective, what makes this CSC thing any different from the old NCAA?

Ahh, but the CSC was born from an Emperors Proclamation, and as such, violators are subject to federal prosecution. Or at least federal persecution.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If the NCAA couldn’t enforce any of its rules, how is it that this new Collegiate Sports Commossion (or committee or whatever it calls itself) can?

IOW, from a legal perspective, what makes this CSC thing any different from the old NCAA?

I think they will have no choice but to:
a) consider the athletes employees of the university
b) have signed contracts that enable them to enforce rules the NZAA could not
c) I think this is also how they will limit the portal somewhat.

I suspect this is how they're going to get around Title IX and argue that the employees aren't covered by the same law the STUDENTS are.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I think they will have no choice but to:
a) consider the athletes employees of the university
b) have signed contracts that enable them to enforce rules the NZAA could not
c) I think this is also how they will limit the portal somewhat.

I suspect this is how they're going to get around Title IX and argue that the employees aren't covered by the same law the STUDENTS are.

That's essentially a CBA.

And yes, I think that's the only solution that will be both effective and stand up in court.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

That's essentially a CBA.

And yes, I think that's the only solution that will be both effective and stand up in court.

I mean I'm not a FAN of it, but if they don't do something, the sport will collapse. Anyone who thinks a sport cannot implode - and quickly, overnight - better go do a study of what all NASCAR did wrong to kill the kingdom they built. It is still the same sport it always was - cars turn left for 500 laps or miles or whatever, and the guy who crosses the finish line first gets money, a trophy, and a kiss from a buxom girl. And it was far easier to control NASCAR because it was a family business that was run as a dictatorship. In 2004, they were talking about having international races as part of the Whatever It Is Now Cup racing season. By 2007, they were beginning a rapid descent that accelerated with the Great Recession.

Don't think that just because "Americans can't live without their football" that that protects MINOR LEAGUE football from severe problems.

If I wanted to watch a sport where some whiny 20-something pouts about not making enough money for the danger he faces on the athletic field, I'd still be watching the NFL, which other than the Super Bowl I don't.