Click here to subscribe to CSBN. It's Free.

Sports Business

Click here to subscribe to CSBN. It's Free.

Sports Media

IMG College currently holds licenses for five Mid-American Conference schools. They also own the licensing for all 23 MAC championship events and radio rights for all broadcasted league championships.

To read more, click here.

CSBN Columnists

Hoops, We Hardly Knew Ye

By Rich Lehmann, CSBN Editor Sat, Feb 11, 2012

A funny thing happened on the way to the Super Bowl: the college basketball season joined the Indianapolis Colts and St. Louis Rams as this year’s biggest losers.

At least that’s how it seems.

The season that wasn’t is already less than a month away from Selection Sunday, and if I didn’t hear CBS’s Jim Nantz mention it at the end of the Waste Management Phoenix Open one week ago, I may not have woken up to the season until St. Patrick’s Day. (If you want to call that waking up.)

What is it about this college basketball season that has made it so uninspiring? Why didn’t I hang in to see the incredible finish of the Duke-North Carolina game as I had for so many games from so many seasons before?

I have my suspicions.

First, on a personal level, as a lifetime fan of the New York Giants I was caught up in their march to the Super Bowl, so I assumed that must have had something to do with my lack of interest in the latest group of one-and-doners at Kentucky and programs like it. But that doesn’t reflect the national malaise, so I don’t believe that’s a contributing factor…

Second, with the schedule creep of the college football season now extending nearly half-way through the basketball season, and with the NFL occupying more prime time TV acreage during its regular season, college basketball has all of a sudden become jayvee entertainment. We might stick around and watch for a few minutes, but we’re mainly here to see the varsity play. Still, that doesn’t nail it either…

Third, “it’s the economy, stupid!” Yes, things are tough all around. But that hasn’t stopped Major League Baseball from growing attendance by a half-percent in 2011 compared to 2010, nor has the economy hurt NBA attendance, which also grew slightly in 2010-2011 from the prior year. So if you hear someone blather about the economy being to blame for lousy attendance and public indifference, you’ll know it’s a lame excuse.

Fourth, the rapid growth of social media and real-time game reporting online now makes it possible for fans to follow the progress of contests without having to fight traffic to get to the game, endure rude fan behavior once they arrive, or have their wallets emptied by price gouging arena management. The same goes for television viewers who now can watch Jersey Shore until their brains melt and not miss a play as long as they have a mobile device or computer handy. We’re getting warmer...

So what else is behind the “no look” pass fans are giving college basketball?

Plain and simple, it’s neglect. College basketball has become the neglected stepchild to its handsome, more celebrated sibling. The singular focus of the big conferences on the football product and the machinations of realignment are already coming home to roost in arenas around the country. I suspect that fans, witnessing the chase for the almighty dollar, are thinking to themselves much as I am: If the conference commissioners and college presidents don't care what happens to their basketball leagues, why should we?

Take the ACC, for example. The Washington Post reported Friday that “nine of the conference’s 12 men’s basketball teams are on pace for a lower attendance from last year. Maryland and Virginia Tech both are averaging more than 1,500 fewer fans per game than this time last season, the two biggest drops in the league.” Try blaming that on Randy Edsall, Terps fans.

The ACC isn’t the only conference feeling the pain, either. The Big East is down this year after four consecutive years of rising attendance. The Pac-12, which is having a dreadful year on the court, joins the ACC as the two conferences that have seen their average attendance drop four years running. It wasn’t long ago that the ACC was riding the top of the basketball wave, but then it stole Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech from the Big East and the slow trip down the slippery slope soon followed.

Rivalries aren’t created overnight, but they can be killed in an instant. Of the recent maneuvers, only Nebraska to the Big 10 and Colorado and Utah to the Pac-12 make sense to me psychologically. (After all, marketing is all about psychology.) I’ll add in Memphis to the Big East, strictly as a move to shore up the basketball product. But West Virginia to the Big 12, Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the ACC, and Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC are emotionally vapid. How fired up will fans get for Florida-Missouri instead of Kansas-Missouri? Or Texas A&M-Georgia instead of Texas A&M-Texas? Sorry, I don’t see it. Outside of playing North Carolina and Duke in basketball and lacrosse, what does Syracuse bring to the ACC? Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia was a terrific rivalry until greed ripped them apart. Will the “Backyard Brawl” be preserved when they move to their new conferences, or will their open dates be filled with cupcakes to pad their won-loss records?

As far as fan engagement, the regular season in college basketball is beginning to look a lot like the NBA regular season: a speed bump on the way to March Madness. And that’s an awful shame.

The present sorry state of affairs in college basketball was crystalized for me when a buddy of mine, knowing my solid track record for picking these kinds of things (strictly for recreational purposes, of course), called to ask which team sitting outside of the Top 10 did I think had a chance to win the whole enchilada. I mean, I usually have a solid handle on this kind of prognostication. But not this year.

I told him I’d have to get back to him. San Diego State, anyone?

CSBN Columnists

Are College Presidents to Blame for this Runaway Train?

By Tue, Jan 31, 2012

The role of the college president in athletics has become much more prominent in recent years. Presidents’ names appear in sports sections more often than ever before, especially in the last year with presidents taking on a leadership role in conference realignment. The question is, is this a good thing? At one time some thought it was the best option.

The Knight Commission has historically asked that presidents be involved in college athletics, however I am not sure the Commission was asking presidents to get involved so much so that they are aggressively pursuing ventures such as television contracts and conference realignment. In reviewing the Commission’s efforts starting in the 1990s and continuing through the early 21^st century, their message has been clear: presidents can affect real reform. Perhaps one of the most striking examples of presidential involvement early on was when in 1995 the Knight Commission was just starting to lead academic reform efforts. Members of the Commission called upon presidents and chancellors to “personally attend” the 1995 NCAA Convention which was a perfect platform for presidents to get involved and affect academic reform. Since that time presidential involvement gained great momentum and in 1996 the NCAA changed the governance authority of college athletics from the athletics directors to the presidents. All appeared to be headed in the right direction, or so we thought.

Fast forward to 2011 and now one of the founding members of the Knight Commission and president emeritus of the University of North Carolina system, Dr. William Friday, seems to have a different message. In a widely read series from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr. Friday is no longer writing to presidents encouraging them to get involved and affect reform, rather he hints at the idea that current university leaders are to blame for being part of the problems associated with college athletics. In one of his strongest statements in the series, Dr. Friday writes to university officials that it is time to “bring an immediate end to the shameful exploitation and abuse now so destructive of these worthy and essential institutions.”

The logical thinking years ago was to have presidents become more involved in the NCAA and at each member institution because they would have more authority to make decisions in the best interest of the schools and perhaps act more responsibly than athletic directors and coaches in the past. Essentially, giving power to those “outside” of athletics would help control the problems within college athletics. However, by calling for the involvement of more people (including not just presidents and chancellors but boards of trustees, faculty members and conference commissioners) we have taken authority away from the position that could have the most influence and knowledge of such decisions – the athletic director. Those that are critical of such a thought assume that the athletic director would act only in the best interest of athletics, not the institution. However, since the mid 1990s when presidents became more involved in college athletics, have things changed that much? Certainly there has been progress, but has presidential involvement really helped?

Such a question is difficult to answer and far be it from me to criticize the position of college presidents. I have the luxury of not needing to make the final decision on finding the balance between athletics and academics. The pressure that exists at the presidential level is something most people cannot fathom. Numerous writings have highlighted the challenges presidents and chancellors have in trying to manage both the internal and external interests in higher education, including college athletics. College Sports Business News’ Editor Tim O’Brien offered excellent suggestions to presidents in his December 2011 column that outlined how leaders can gain better perspective on the issues facing athletic departments. However, even those presidents that are involved in the daily minutia of college athletics, as well as those tackling the larger issues at the NCAA level, seem to have been struggling for years.

Take for example this article written by Douglas Lederman that appeared in USA Today in 2004 where he listed examples of how presidents were “helpless.” President after president, including those that served on the Knight Commission, had become part of the Division I problem, not part of the solution. Now, as talk of the presidents continuing to lead conversations about conference realignment persists, one has to wonder if presidents have given up efforts to reform college athletics, and are turning their efforts to surviving the transitions. Certainly, the need for survival changes perspective and will have an impact on the decision-making process. This was highlighted in a Connecticut Post article on January 5^th, written by Ken Dixon. Dixon recapped UConn’s position in conference realignment by citing email exchanges between administrators. In September, UConn’s President Susan Herbst highlighted in one sentence the lack of athletic directors (ADs) present in conference realignment discussions when she wrote: "In general, at this point at least, ADs are not running the discussion around the country and a lot is happening." Around the same time President Herbst sent her email to UConn’s interim athletic director, Paul Pendergast, it was becoming painfully apparent nationwide athletic directors were not running the discussion. In fact, some athletic directors were completely left in the dark. The athletic directors’ silence and confusion throughout this past fall and the presidents, boards and curators' quotes and explanations gave a strong indication that some of the most important decisions being made regarding college athletics were being made by people above the athletic director, the person with, possibly, the greatest perspective.

But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that this is not a 21^st century issue, rather it became an issue as soon as presidents were introduced to conference championships and television money. In a 1995 Sporting News article written by former NCAA president Walter Byers, the problem of presidential control was questioned even then. It is a fascinating article with statements that capture today’s current landscape. For example, in the most powerful paragraphs, Byers wrote:

“Unfortunately, the much-publicized presidential reform movement of the past 10 years has been little more than a public-relations venture. Presidents speak nationally of reform and student welfare, but then return to the campus to recruit new colleges for their major league conferences. They want more TV negotiating muscle and more of their teams in bowl games and tournaments. At the national level, presidents gravely cut the number of grants-in-aid, then return to campus to generate more revenue for the campus supervisors and overseer.

“The new Big 12 Conference has been taking bids for a football championship game. Thus far, six cities have filed bids ranging from offers of $6.88 to $8.21 million to host the event. One of the reform-minded presidents of the Big 12 told the Kansas City Star on October 1: ‘It all comes down to money. Whatever generates the most money is what we're interested in doing.’”

Perhaps one issue that needs to be readdressed is the concept of presidential control. Certainly, the trustees and the presidents have every right to exert their power over athletics, but do they understand the impact of their decisions when they step in? Are presidents capable of leading a Division I athletic department, all while dealing with other major institutional issues? Should decisions that will impact the future of college athletics be lead by presidents or should we reconsider the role of the Division I athletic director at the NCAA, conference and even institutional level? Byers’ 1995 editorial in the Sporting News, and Lederman’s 2004 article suggested a warning that presidential involvement was not working then and Dr. Friday’s article suggests it is not working now. As written in Lederman’s article, former Arkansas athletics director Frank Broyles said, "I haven't seen presidents do anything different or better than the people who were running the show beforehand — to the contrary, actually." Perhaps it is time for a new perspective.

# # #

Tony Weaver is an Assistant Professor for Sport and Event Management at Elon University in Elon, North Carolina. He currently serves on numerous advisory boards for local, regional and national organizations within the sport and event industry, and is an active member of the National Association of Collegiate Marketing Administrators (NACMA), North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) and the College Sports Research Institute (CSRI). Tony’s writings related to college athletics have been featured in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, the Knowledge Collaborative and Ultimate Sports Insider.com. Tony served almost 10 years in Division I college athletics administration at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Siena College, Iona College and the University of Connecticut. He coached college and high school basketball and gained practical experience in financial organizations before moving into administration. Tony holds a B.S. from Siena College; an M.A. from the University of Connecticut; and a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He became an assistant professor at Elon in 2007. He can be reached at tweaver@elon.edu

CSBN Columnists

The NBA is Back, But So Are Its Draft Eligibility Rules

By Tue, Jan 17, 2012

Josh Winneker, Esq. After yet another contentious collective bargaining process, the NBA season is finally underway. In watching the games this year, Brandon Jennings (a stand-out guard on the Milwaukee Bucks) and his journey to the NBA comes to mind and makes me wonder if the NBA eligibility rules and the recent collective bargaining process will make overseas professional basketball a more attractive option than college for high school players going forward.

The NBA eligibility rules have changed over the years thanks in part to Spencer Haywood, a former star player who had challenged the NBA’s prior rule that required that players be at least four years removed from the date of their high school graduation or in the case of players who did not graduate from high school, four years from the date that the remainder of their high school class graduated. Haywood was successful in his antitrust challenge against the league and the league eventually relaxed its rule dramatically and allowed players to jump directly from high school to the professional ranks.

For a while, there were not many high schoolers who even attempted to make the leap, let alone succeed, with notable exceptions like Moses Malone and Shawn Kemp. Then in 1995, Kevin Garnett made a splash as a high draft pick directly from high school who then also made an immediate impact on the league. This opened the floodgates for the likes of Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. The floodgates also included many current no-name players who risked their collegiate eligibility by declaring for the NBA draft and then either did not get drafted or got drafted in the second round and never made an NBA team. There were too many of these sad stories to mention and a growing concern that a lot of students were foregoing a chance to attend college on an athletic scholarship to chase a highly unlikely dream, so the NBA reacted and included in its collective bargaining agreement a new eligibility rule. Although the rule is more extensive than this, it basically breaks down as: a player must be at least 19 years old and out of high school for at least one year. The latter part was included for players that may be 19 when they graduate but not a year removed from high school yet (see O.J. Mayo).

This has resulted in the so-called “one and done” syndrome where star high school players who now cannot make the direct step into the NBA go to school for a year and then declare themselves eligible for the NBA Draft. The “one and doners” have changed the focus of college recruiting and college basketball in general. Many of the big-time programs know that they are only able to keep the players for a year and instead focus their recruiting on a one-year timeframe and not search for a true student-athlete that will grow with the program and the school.

Many have discussed the pros and cons of this, but it was not until Brandon Jennings spurned the University of Arizona to instead take his “one and done” year and play professional basketball in Italy in 2008 that anyone believed avoiding college for a year was even a possibility. Jennings was the first known American high schooler to opt for European basketball over playing college basketball. Jennings did not have a stellar year in Italy but declared himself eligible for the 2009 NBA Draft anyway and was selected tenth overall by the Milwaukee Bucks. A lot of critics scoffed at the choice given Jennings’ lackluster performance in Italy, but Jennings came into the league as a “rookie” and took the league by surprise. He was a first-team All-Rookie unanimous selection and even scored 55 points in one game, the second highest total for a player under 21 in NBA history.

Given Jennings’ immediate impact, one could make a plausible argument that playing basketball against professionals, and men instead of young adults, could have played a significant factor in his instant success. Many believed that Jennings hurt his draft chances by going to Europe where no one except maybe Fran Fraschilla saw him play basketball instead of going to a big-time program like University of Arizona. Jennings proved them wrong and it seemed as though maybe it would spark a movement of more players opting for Europe instead of college, but it really did not happen. There had been one or two less publicized failures in this regard, but not the mass exodus you may have imagined. Being an 18 year old and playing basketball with men in a foreign country where you likely do not speak the language and have never been before probably played a major factor in keeping more players in American colleges. And, if you have ever read Paul Shirley’s “Can I Keep My Jersey?”, it does not paint the most favorable picture of life as an American basketball player in Europe.

Given all of that, then why would a player want to choose playing overseas over college? For one, beyond Brandon Jennings providing a strong blueprint for success on this road, many college players for years have felt exploited by their schools for making millions from March Madness while the players are left with their small stipend – playing professionally does away with the amateur status issue. The players will be making money and also do not have to worry about agent tampering or unlawful gifts.

Additionally, this most recent highly publicized collective bargaining process with the NBA owners and the players’ union resulted in a number of players playing overseas or threatening to play overseas. The overseas teams paid the players an enormous amount of money for a short time period just to have the players on their teams. With more high profile American players going to Europe even for a short period, it has made the leap less of an unknown than it was previously. One of the issues argued over in this most recent collective bargaining agreement was over the rules covering draft eligibility. The league wants to change the rule to require the player to be at least 20 years old and two years removed from high school. The players do not agree. This rule was essentially “tabled” in the agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement with the two sides agreeing to form a committee to work on the issue.

If the rule does get changed, and high school players are now looking at two years post-high school before they become eligible for the draft, why would they choose to go to college and be “exploited” when they can go play professionally where some of the big-name current players have played (or threatened to play), gain experience, and then enter the draft? The “one and doners” never planned to stay in college anyway, so it seems that it would not be a big surprise if Europe, going forward, becomes a more attractive option.

# # #

Josh Winneker is an Assistant Dean at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California. He has taught Sports and the Law and the Business of Sports at Rider University. Josh has also taught at Widener University School of Law, Charleston School of Law and Seton Hall University School of Law. He is also an Associate with the O'Brien Sports Group, which specializes in college sports consulting matters.

Josh graduated magna cum laude from Seton Hall University School of Law where he was a member of the Seton Hall Law Review. He was a summer associate, law clerk and associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York City in the Antitrust/Sports Law group. He also served for two years as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Josh was also a litigation associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP.

Additionally, Josh graduated cum laude from Muhlenberg College, where he was a member of the Varsity Soccer team and Centennial Conference Champion.

Josh has published in the Seton Hall Law Review and is admitted to practice law in New York, New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Josh can be reached at jwinneker@tjsl.edu

CSBN Columnists

Another FERPA Shield Shows that College Sports are Not About Education

By Mon, Jan 02, 2012

FREE Todd O’Brien!! I have been beating this drum via the virtual universe for the past few days in what I see as a blatant example of what is wrong with college athletics and the control over athletes for the purposes of so called “competitive equity.” I make no secret that I feel athletes should be given more rights to maximize their educational utility as much as their athletic utility. After all it is supposed to be about education—right? The athletic scholarship by definition is supposed to be an academic, not athletic, award—right? In reality it is hard to argue that any of this is true with regard to big time commercialized athletics in today’s climate. Who is Todd O’Brien you ask?

He is just the latest poster boy for one of the major ills that plague college sports—and that is the current one-time graduate student exception transfer rule. A few years ago the NCAA allowed athletes who graduated with eligibility remaining to go to another school with no questions asked, to get another degree or pursue graduate school while continuing to play their sport. What a great opportunity to free students to maximize their educational opportunities using athletics as an impetus to further one’s education. After all, isn’t that what it is supposed to be about? There was not a huge rush of athletes being able to take advantage of this new found educational freedom, but there were some. As opposed to staying at their current school and possibly pursuing an educational option that might not be the best fit just to continue playing, this rule opened up options such as law school or other professional educational opportunities for the few that graduate with eligibility remaining.

Everyone should have been cheering this educational opportunity for a select few, but along the way something happened. Coaches and administrators feared loss of control over the very athletes that were their meal ticket and who might (shudder) leave them and play for someone else even though it might be in the athlete’s best educational interest. One former head Division I football coach felt “it is not fair for me to recruit a player twice.” Not fair to whom? Are you kidding me? Colonial Athletic Association Commissioner Tom Yeager contributed this gem and said the rule had many “unintended consequences.” The only unintended consequence he was worried about was losing control of what he and others in intercollegiate athletics view as simply property and their right to control.

As expected and to retain control over the athlete, the NCAA, under immense pressure from people like Yeager, quickly amended the rule to only allow those to use the exception that can prove the move is for an academic, not athletic reason. Meaning if a comparable program is offered at the baccalaureate institution the athlete graduated from, an athlete cannot transfer to another school for an educational purpose because it is available at the first institution. Not as good as the first rule, but at least an opportunity could present itself for some athletes unless schools tried to the fight the “academic exception” and some have. Still, a few athletes have been able to take advantage of this since the change, most notably Jeremiah Masoli who went to Ole Miss after graduating from Oregon in 2010.

Enter O’Brien, who is currently enrolled at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He has graduated from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, after transferring there from Bucknell, and fulfilled his obligation to that school as a scholarship athlete by graduating. According to O’Brien, he enrolled at UAB because of the graduate Public Administration program with a focus in Community Development that is not available at St. Joe’s. Sounds good and within the rules, however nothing can ever be that simple in college sports, especially if it benefits the athlete.

In O’ Brien’s case, St. Joe’s feels like it should not have to release him and they are claiming he is leaving for an athletic, not academic reason. The NCAA inexplicably backed up St. Joe’s by denying O’Brien’s legislative waiver for a release. This goes to prove that the new one-time graduate student exception has about as much teeth as the appeal rights an athlete has for a one-year scholarship cancelled at the end of the term of an award. The cards are held by the coaches and athletic department. Except for rare exceptions, these waivers or appeals are rarely, if ever, approved.

O’Brien claims that St. Joe’s longtime coach, Phil Martelli, is refusing his release based on many reasons, not the least of which is that Martelli feels that O’Brien left them high and dry with a scholarship available at too late of a date to offer it to someone else. He calls O’Brien “disloyal” and seems to be upset that St. Joe’s paid for his final three classes of summer school and then he decided to leave (something O’Brien’s father has offered to pay back to alleviate the impasse). Of course coaches continually leave teams high and dry as they chase the money and better jobs, but their disloyalty is rewarded, while athletes like O’Brien have to sit and watch the year go by.

During the adjudication with the NCAA, St. Joe’s went as far to say that O’Brien’s move was more for athletic, than academic, reasons; but, O’Brien presents a compelling case as he has enrolled in a program not offered at St. Joe’s and in an area he has already worked in via an internship. St. Joe’s and the NCAA are not talking, instead relying on canned statements that state they consider the matter closed. Cyberspace spiked the past few days with dozens of reporters and even Dick Vitale coming to O’Brien’s defense on Twitter. This prompted Joe Lunardi, a St. Joe's administrator, in an apparent momentary lapse of reason to tweet “about you not knowing the whole story” but doing it with a wink icon. That is about as far as St. Joe’s has come in defending and explaining its actions.

They claim they cannot talk further because this is a student privacy issue that falls under the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or what is commonly called the Buckley Amendment. I disagree. St. Joe’s and coach Martelli need to talk about this decision and should do so quickly, or they deserve everything that is coming to them from both a public relations and recruiting perspective.

O’Brien has already released his records via NCAA forms that he signed while an athlete at St. Joes. In other words—St. Joes can talk about this and saying they cannot is a cop-out. They claim that there are two sides to every story and I say—then tell that story. These are O’Brien’s records to release and frankly do not fall under private educational records that FERPA intended to protect, which are educational records linking identifiable academic information.

Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reporters Todd Jones and Jill Riepenhoff did yeoman’s work on the misuse and misapplication of the Buckley Amendment that athletic departments and the NCAA use in an attempt to shield themselves from criticism, academic clustering, and shamefully in this case, simply doing the right thing. I urge everyone involved in college athletics to read “Secrecy 101” in the Columbus Dispatch from December 2010 and Cleaning up Buckley, from Jon Ericson and Matt Salzwedel in the Wisconsin Law Review, to get a full picture of how the Buckley Amendment has been misused specifically with regard to institutional behavior such as this and hopefully get an understanding of how to prevent this in the future.

St. Joe’s is taking a deserved public beating over this matter. It is possible that O’Brien did not do all the right things, but saying he waited too long is a very poor excuse to do this. Is there more? We will not know unless they speak and not hide behind a law that is not applicable in this case. Even if O’Brien chafed St. Joe’s in some way, the university gains nothing by not releasing him to pursue and maximize his educational future. Continuing to act in this way is contrary to the principles of higher education and St. Joe’s can add themselves to a long list of schools and coaches who prove every day that athletic success and revenue generation far outweighs anything academic in today’s college sports landscape.

Sadly in the process they are misusing a federal law to protect the very status quo that we often say does not exist in college sports. Perhaps in this holiday season St. Joe’s might get a heart and do the right thing, or O’Brien’s legal team, led by the capable Donald Maurice Jackson, can legally pull back the curtain of Buckley and shame fine institution like St. Joseph’s into doing the right thing and releasing Todd O’Brien to play basketball at UAB.

# # #

Dr. B. David Ridpath, Ed.D. is an Assistant Professor of Sport Administration at Ohio University in the School of Recreation and Sport Sciences. He began his current position in 2006. Dr. Ridpath has several years of practical experience in the sports industry and teaches classes in marketing, sponsorship, risk management, sports law, issues in intercollegiate athletics, and other areas to include serving as faculty advisor and Associate General Manager of the Southern Ohio Copperheads, a summer collegiate wooden bat baseball team headquartered in Athens. The Copperheads are a main experiential learning laboratory for graduate and undergraduate sports administration and sports management students and is entirely student run. He also serves as Associate Director of the Ralph and Lucy Schey Sales Center and is the director of the undergraduate sport management sales certificate program, currently one of the only specific sports management sales certification programs in the world. This is Ridpath's second stint at Ohio. He previously served as assistant wrestling coach at Ohio from 1994-95. While on legendary head coach Harry Houska's staff, the Bobcat wrestling team won the Mid American Conference wrestling championship in 1995 and finished 19th in the country. He also earned a Masters of Sports Administration and Facility Management degree from Ohio in 1995.

Prior to returning to Ohio University, Ridpath spent two years directing the graduate sports administration program at Mississippi State University placing graduates in positions within the MSU athletic department, the Southeastern Conference (SEC), NASCAR, and minor league baseball. Prior to MSU, he spent over a decade working in intercollegiate athletic administration and higher education including seven years at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, where he served as an Adjunct Professor of Sport Management and Marketing, Director of Judicial Programs and Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance and Student Services.

He also worked in the athletic department at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah, for three years from 1995-1997 as Assistant Director of Marketing and Promotions, Game and Event Management Coordinator, Director of Internal Operations, and Director of Compliance. While at Weber State he served as a media manager at the 1997 NCAA Men's Basketball Western Regional in Salt Lake City and as Co-director of the Mid-American Conference Wrestling Tournament in 1996. As an undergraduate student at Colorado State University, he was a 1990 Distinguished Military Graduate in Army ROTC and spent over 12 years on active duty and in the Army National Guard, including two overseas tours in Germany. He is also a certified college and international wrestling official.

Ridpath received a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from West Virginia University in May 2002. His primary research line is issues and problems in intercollegiate athletics with a focus on academic integrity and governance reform. An accomplished scholar, he has over 30 national and international refereed presentations and eight peer reviewed academic articles in print, two published academic book chapters, and has had writings and editorials featured in the NCAA News, Sports Business Journal, Legal Issues in College Athletics, and will be releasing a book entitled Tainted Glory: Marshall University, The NCAA, and One Man’s Fight for Justice in late 2010. Dr. Ridpath has been retained several times as an expert in litigation involving college sports issues and is regularly interviewed on relevant issues in college sports within the media to include ESPN Outside the Lines, The Paul Finebaum Radio Show, and WATH Sports Radio. Dr Ridpath has also been quoted and featured in several publications discussing issues in college athletics including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Toronto Globe and Mail, USA Today, Indianapolis Star, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Birmingham News, to name a few. Dr. Ridpath can be reached at ridpath@ohio.edu

CSBN Columnists

Cost of Attendance Controversy Reveals Seismic-Size Competitive Equity Problem

By Dave O'Brien, CSBN Editor Wed, Dec 28, 2011

Dave O'Brien, CSBN Editor In August the NCAA approved a plan that will allow schools to pay for a cost of attendance stipend beyond tuition, room and board for athletes; the legislation would allow for a $2,000 stipend intended to help with additional school-related expenses. The NCAA believed that unprecedented conference television deals would help cover the cost. However, that plan has been put on hold after a growing number of schools who are not party to these television deals voted to override the decision.

Of the 346 Division I schools, 125 signed on for the override measure, which guaranteed the suspension of the rule. The issue will be reconsidered at the Board of Directors meetings in January. “Based on conversations I have had, I am confident that there remains a very high level of support for this permissive legislation to provide better support for our student athletes,” NCAA President Mark Emmert told the NCAA News.

To the NCAA's credit, the idea of the stipend was to help prevent the modern student-athlete from having to reach outside to boosters to pay for extra expenses such as travel, food, and clothing. Considering many prominent schools have been immersed with issues involving agents or boosters providing players with extra income, the NCAA was trying to provide a solution. Additionally, student-athlete welfare and simple economic justice led to the new proposal.

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier chaired the working group established to examine student-athlete well-being issues. “We understand the situation of our student-athletes. This isn’t about paying student-athletes, but it is about being fair and recognizing that in Division I it ought to be important to meet this need,” Spanier said.

While the stipend is voluntary it is very clear that any schools that don’t provide the extra money to athletes will be at an instant recruiting disadvantage.

Back in June the NCAA reported that the spending gap between the richest programs and the rest of Division I continues to grow. University subsidies and student fees are increasingly being used to fund athletic programs, especially at the non-BCS level.

Only 22 of the 346 athletic programs in NCAA Division I generate more money than they spend according to the NCAA’s most recent report. Of those truly self-sufficient programs, the median annual surplus is $7.4 million. The rest of the Division I schools experience a median deficit of $11.3 million. The nearly $19 million gap between the schools that generate a profit and those that produce a deficit resulting in institutional subsidies and student fee allocations has been referred to by NCAA President Mark Emmert as a competitive equity issue. This assessment understates the problem since it is actually a seismic-size competitive equity gap.

It is within this financial climate that the cost of attendance proposal emerges clearly pitting the haves against the have-nots. Matthew Denhart, administrative director for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a Washington, D.C., group that studies college finances, says that colleges are moving toward “a breaking point.” Boise State claims that the proposal creates an unfair playing field between institutions.

For many people interested in supporting student-athletes the permissive legislation was a public relations coup for the NCAA; however, the funding inequities that exist within Division I are highlighted by the legislation and these issues are extremely problematic in many profound ways.

Earlier this year Kentucky men’s basketball coach John Calipari said he could see the BCS conferences breaking away from the NCAA. Additionally, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany went public with a view that there needs to be major changes under the umbrella of the NCAA.

As conference realignment continues to occur and the prospect of 4-5 super conferences becomes more likely, and as discussions start to unfold about changes to the BCS format, the prospect of a new and separate structure for Division I BCS teams becomes more of a reality. This well-intended legislation demonstrates the true chasm that exists between BCS and non-BCS schools; regrettably it may be too big of a gap resource-wise to ignore any longer. Fundamental change is in the air.

CSBN Columnists

A Modest Proposal: Coaches as Faculty?

By Sat, Dec 24, 2011

In the last few weeks there have been a number of responses to the emerging scandals at Penn State and Syracuse. What has been interesting to me has been the shift in the tenor of the commentary of late. Immediately after these stories surfaced, much of what was said focused on the tragedy and the human element. Yet what has been highlighted in the last few weeks has been more about the state of college athletics. More to the point, rather than asking how this could have happened, the question has now become, “What’s happened to college sports?”

Let’s not be naïve and suggest that college sport is any better or worse than the grand old days of yesteryear. Instead, let’s be more honest and forthright and realize that college sport is perhaps more tainted than before because of the grossly large sums of money at stake, but that the tension of athletic competition and the aims of higher education are still as taut as ever. With these latest scandals the line of questioning has been diverted to ask about the damaging power of intercollegiate sport in higher education.

One of the overlooked responses to these scandals came from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in late November in a statement titled “The Dangers of a Sports Empire.” The AAUP is a quite powerful association of university faculty which aims “to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good.” In many cases the AAUP has served as the influential faculty voice on issues in higher education, often protecting both the priority of academic endeavors on campus and the necessity of faculty to contribute to the directions of colleges and universities. Moreover, the AAUP has over the last twenty years provided a number of observations on the burgeoning state of college sports and the need for faculty involvement in athletics programs.

In this most recent statement regarding the Penn State scandal, the AAUP’s National Council said:

“Genuine shared governance, which involves meaningful participation by faculty in all aspects of an institution, could have resulted in these alleged crimes being reported to the city and state police years ago, and might have spared some of the victims the trauma they endured, and indeed continue to endure, because of the memories that remain, and the legal and judicial process they still face.”

It’s taken me reading this statement a number of times to get at what I perceive to be the intended meaning. In essence, the statement – in concert with the reference to the “Sports Empire” – seems to suggest that the scandal at Penn State erupted precisely because the athletics department operated outside the norms and expectations of the institution which are often guided by the faculty, that in effect, the athletics department grew to be such a monolithic presence that it created its own rules and regulations. Such isolation not only pushed away the primacy of the academic enterprise and the supportive hand of faculty governance, but also gave rise to a culture where the protection of the department was paramount above all else.

I’ve heard this argument before in many forms and in many disguises. The very core of the argument from faculty is one of cultural difference. They will proclaim that intercollegiate athletics and all its departmental members do not value the same things as the academic side of campus, therefore faculty – to the good of the institution – should control athletics. It’s really that simple.

But let me push on this a bit. While it is easy to acknowledge that some faculty care little about students and care deeply about arcane academic subject matter, it also must be acknowledged that there are many coaches who see the value of college athletics in its ability to shape and direct young lives. For them it has nothing to do with the riches at play in contemporary college sport. We are left with a mixed bag with no end in sight. Some care, some don’t and still the problems persist.

No, let me instead argue that the issue at play for faculty is not one of control of athletics, but of shared intention and what is or should be valued. Let me instead make a modest proposal of two points to address the cultural divide.

Point #1 – Abolish athletics departments as “centers” of financial activity and instead make them academic departments subject to the norms and rules that govern faculty.

Point #2 – Make all coaches and key administrators members of the faculty, again subject to the norms and rules of faculty including contract length, salary, and evaluation.

As to the first point, the idea here is that the athletics department often operates outside the norms of faculty department because … well, because it is a different department! It operates more often as a functioning business rather than a teaching center. If faculty want to change it, then they (or the Presidents or the Boards) will need to make it more similar to a faculty department. Certainly there are academic departments that raise money through consulting or grants; athletics could operate in a similar way. Yet the primary function of an academic department is to teach and department policies and intentions shape that very function. That is just not the case in athletics. The athletics team is now less a class or laboratory and more a dress rehearsal for the forthcoming (financial) show.

As to the second point, making coaches and key administrators members of the faculty brings them in line with the core personnel in any institution. It still baffles me that the highest paid persons on campus are not the president or star professors, but instead are often the head football coaches and his coordinators. Creating coaches as faculty not only may address the salary issue, but might also reinforce the connection of faculty to one another and to what they do in the classroom. Instead of firing a coach after two years because of a losing record, perhaps evaluate the coach from the student perspective. Have the players grown in that coach’s presence? Have they developed and learned from being on that team? Essentially, is the coach a good teacher? Moreover, coaches as faculty members might be subject to an evaluation from an outside personnel committee; they might also have something akin to tenure or a more secure job situation which doesn’t have coaches leaping from job to job in search of better paydays.

I’m not naïve to think that many would go for this. It’s not just a modest proposal of only two points, but it’s a bit crazy and scares some folks I’m sure. But our current model of coaching and athletics in higher education is without doubt highly professionalized. My own experience as a college athletic director was rich with this model. At two of my stops as AD, no one in the athletics department possessed faculty rank of any sort nor did they teach in any meaningful way. That very thing in my opinion made my job all the more difficult, but more directly created a divide between athletics and academics. Integration? Mind and body together? Community? Hardly. Coaches at times had little interest in the academic side of things beyond admission and eligibility, while faculty members in general seemed to marginalize and ostracize those in athletics as doing something less worthy. It contributed to a poor environment and made connection of athletics and academics in our college community all the more challenging at the very least, and impossible at worst in some cases.

But perhaps, just perhaps, if we begin to think of coaches and faculty and of academic and athletic departments as somehow being equal and having similar aims, then we might have a better state of affairs. We can all dream, can’t we?

# # #

Dr. Travis Feezell currently serves as an associate professor of sport management at Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, North Carolina. He received his doctoral degree in education from the University of Idaho in 2005. In addition, he received his master's degree in British medieval studies from the University of Wales-Cardiff in 1992 and his undergraduate degree in English from the University of Wyoming in 1990.

Karl Benson Exits WAC for Sun Belt

By Thu, Feb 16, 2012

Did WAC Err by Letting Benson Go?

$12.4 Million in Exit Costs for Missouri

Questioning Restrictions on Student-Athlete Transfers

The Atlantic Looks at Title IX at 40

Rivalries are Subordinate to Cash

Big Ten Baseball Championship May Move to Omaha

Radford Hit with Sanctions

NCAA: Ducks' Football Broke the Rules

Another Voice in Favor of Paying Athletes

Owls to Big East?

Pitt Commits to Fulfill Big East Obligation

Notre Dame AD Ideal Big 12 Commissioner?

Can Conference USA/Mountain West Merger Work?

WSU Improves Fundraising Efforts

Shockers Retain Rhycom Sports for Consulting Project

Aggies Raise Football Ticket Prices

Wolverines Instituting Seat Licensing Program for Hoops

Hoosiers Secure $1 Million Donation

Cavaliers Raise Prices for Football Tickets Despite Weakening Sales

Northern Iowa Braces for Cuts

MSU Turns to Collegiate Consulting for Ticket Sales

Some Wealthy Schools Voted Against Multi-Year Scholarships

Georgia State Examining Move to FBS

Badgers Approve Variable Pricing for Football

West Virginia/Big East Settlement Terms Revealed

Breaking News: College Students Like to Party

Knight Put the Brakes On Big 10 Scoring

Lyons Leading Seton Hall Revival

Big Ten Looking at Summer Baseball

Sports Management Programs On the Rise

Football Final Four for 2014?

Ackerman Writes About Value of Women's Sports

Millersville Drops Sports

Dooley Defends Oversigning

Texas Tech's Tuberville Accused of Investment Fraud

Former Fiesta Bowl Exec Pleads Guilty

Texas Supreme Court Denies Leach

ESPN Football Analyst Wins Oscar

BCS Hiring Media Consultants

Tweet Tweaks NU's Fitzgerald

PAC-12 Building Network Home

Hawaii Seeking Support for Athletic Facilities

St. Cloud State to Expand Hockey Arena

Virginia Board Approves Loan for Football Facility

Oregon's Knight Arena Fails to Meet Revenue Projections

Penn State's Ice Hockey Arena Ahead of Schedule

UConn Soccer Stadium Receives $3 Million Gift

Dayton Takes Pride in Athletic Facilities

Colorado State President Dictates Stadium Requirements

Gamecocks Building Equestrian Locker Room

Badgers Honor Former Hockey Coach

Indiana Secures Naming Gift for Baseball Stadium

White Sox/Illinois Form Promotional Partnership

Cal Berkeley Hires Marketing Expert

CMU Signs with IMG

Hoops, We Hardly Knew Ye

Are College Presidents to Blame for this Runaway Train?

The NBA is Back, But So Are Its Draft Eligibility Rules

Another FERPA Shield Shows that College Sports are Not About Education

Cost of Attendance Controversy Reveals Seismic-Size Competitive Equity Problem

A Modest Proposal: Coaches as Faculty?

Bearcats Deal with Scandal Fallout

Why So Few Female AD's?

Minnesota President Forms Gauntlet Process for AD Search

Bruins Lacking Discipline According to SI

GMU AD Apologizes to VCU

Booster Defends Nebraska Hoops Coach

Madness is a 128-Team Tourney

Livengood Leading UNLV During Difficult Times

Tranghese Blasts Presidents

Baylor Enjoying Success

Kickoff Returns Nearing Extinction

Larry Eustachy Rebuilds Career