The Knight Commission, a non-profit agency which makes recommendations to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, has heard and recommended some radical changes to what the NCAA does with the revenue from March Madness.
On May 10, the Commission’s members heard proposals from Tulane Law Professor Gabe Feldman on how the NCAA could allow athletes to profit off their names and likenesses. In addition, the Commission has made recommendations about removing the cap on revenue restrictions and again voiced its belief that incentives should be based on academic – as opposed to athletic – performance.
In a press release, the Commission strengthened its call for the NCAA to financially reward academic achievement. The release states that 40 percent of the revenue that the NCAA gives out is based on appearances in the annual NCAA men’s basketball tournament, completely independent of academic performance. This current format creates an incentive for appearing in and advancing in March Madness, but doesn’t reward appearances in or advancement in the classroom according to the Commission.
Another recommendation that the Commission re-stated was a reduction on time demands for athletes. The Commission continued its support for mandatory off-days during the off-season, no-activity periods at the end of seasons, and pausing eligibility clocks when students step away from their sports for internships or to study abroad.
One of the new proposals made by the Commission was the removal of a cap on a restriction dictating how revenue received can be spent by schools. The current statute is that 25 percent of revenue received from the NCAA must be spent on “supporting athletes’ education and providing them with appropriate health and safety benefits and protections.” The Commission is now recommending removing that 25 percent cap and restricting every dollar received from the NCAA to use on the same terms.
Perhaps the most radical proposals came from Feldman. Feldman argued that the NCAA could allow athletes to profit from “non-game” uses of their names, images and likenesses without contradicting its purpose as a student advocacy organization. Feldman did realize that instituting such changes would require new oversight and present several challenges, but added that the number of athletes who would be part of such situations would be a very small percentage.
Overall, these proposals have to be exciting for current and future NCAA athletes. If adopted, they would mean greater flexibility with their time and an even bigger investment into their overall collegiate experience. The opportunity for a small number of athletes to actually get endorsement deals is enticing for athletes as well.
For the NCAA’s member institutions, some of these proposals are potentially tumultuous. They could mean additional oversight responsibilities and further compliance issues to address. Few universities would welcome added restrictions from the NCAA on how they spend their revenue, and few coaches are probably excited about reduced time with their athletes.
Shifting the incentives that are currently delved out based on March Madness appearances and advancement is also intriguing from an institutional perspective. Ideologically, it would place more emphasis on players’ classroom performance. The concern, however, is that doing so might create an atmosphere conducive to the paper classes and grade book fixing that have already surfaced at some NCAA institutions.
The odds of these proposals being adopted in any form is unknown. While the NCAA has adopted several of the Commission’s proposals over the years, these proposals are such that might harm the bottom line and financial freedom of some schools.
While these changes have been proposed, the prominence of the “golden rule” is one thing about the NCAA that has never changed, and that might alter or prevent altogether these proposals being adopted. That “golden rule” is he who has the gold, makes the rules.
