# data[].attributes.body
C: Can't find publication date
R: It relates to my topic about sports
A: Picture found through Padlet search
A: No spelling or grammar errors
P: It shows where you will play when you put in a lot of time and effort to get to that point

# data[].attributes.body
C: Can't find publication date
R:It relates to my topic about sports
A: Picture found through Padlet search
A: No spelling or grammar errors
P:It shows where you will play when you put in a lot of time and effort to get to that point

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019
R:It relates to my topic about sports
A: Picture found through Padlet search
A: No spelling or grammar errors
P:It shows where you will play when you put in a lot of time and effort to get to that point

# data[].attributes.body
C: Can't find publication date
R:It relates to my topic about sports
A: Picture found through Padlet search
A: No spelling or grammar errors
P:It shows where you will play when you put in a lot of time and effort to get to that point

# data[].attributes.body
C: Can't find publication date
R:It relates to my topic about sports
A: Picture found through Padlet search
A: No spelling or grammar errors
P:It shows where you will play when you put in a lot of time and effort to get to that point

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019
R: Yes, it does
A: Justin Reyes
Greenville College
It is a schools website that the article is written on.
A: No there are no spelling or grammar errors.
P: Inform about how an athlete in collegiate sports feel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community. For some college athletes, things such as tuition, gear, recovery items, and other necessities needed to perform are not free or cheap. Many college athletes pay money out of their own pockets to be able to perform at the level they need to, but who gets all the financial benefits? The NCAA and the university itself.

According to USA Today, the NCAA had a revenue of $1.1 Billion from 2017 NCAA college sporting events. How much of this money went to the college athletes who are the ones physically and mentally performing generating this money? Zero. However, in a legal way, college athletes who are playing at Division 1 or Division 2 schools are being paid with full scholarship tuition. It is fair to say that, paid tuition is equivalent to being a paid athlete. This leaves out Division 3 college athletes who put in just as much hard work and time to be able to perform at a high level and generate money for the NCAA and their university, but do not receive full rides. At Division 3 colleges, the only scholarship that is allowed is academic, not athletic. I interviewed Walker McDonald, a current college athlete at Greenville University, and asked him the question of, should college athletes get paid for playing for their university? Walker said, "I believe college athletes should be paid based on how much money they get from scholarships...athletes should at least make enough money to cover their tuition if the scholarship doesn't."

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

College athletes have to sign contracts by the NCAA stating that they will not receive any money from anyone while they are playing for the university. I do not dismiss the fact that playing for a university is a privilege and not a right, college athletes have many experiences and memories that are priceless in life. However, times are hard for many students, and college athletes have a bit more expenses when it comes to necessities, they need to be able to perform at high levels. I was able to interview Josias Parker, an alumna of the men's basketball team at Greenville University. I asked him if college athletes should get paid for their time playing for their university. Josias replied by saying, "I definitely think college athletes should get paid, because universities make a lot of money from sports, sports bringing a majority of income, especially for small schools like Greenville University. Athletes should get paid especially because college is a tough time with money, so paying money to athletes will give college athletes more relief and will try to help them and aid them with whatever they need, like necessities they need to perform well."

There is a good compromise with those who disagree with the idea of college athletes getting paid, instead of a set salary like professionals. The very least college athletes could receive is donations from fans or other organizations. College athletes are told to treat their sport as a job and be professional about every aspect of the game. However, like waiters and waitresses get tips for doing a good job, why can't athletes be rewarded the same way?

Even without pay, the very least college athletes could receive is a guarantee that their scholarship will not be taken away if they are hurt playing. If we are going the route that an athlete's pay is their scholarship, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away when they are no longer "useful" for the university. Athletes like Kyle Hardrick who lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma University after he tore his meniscus in his knee are examples that universities only care about the ability of the player to perform. If universities only care about the usefulness of the athlete, then there should be guaranteed tuition or pay allowing the athlete to finish college even after being injured and unable to play. Student college athletes should get paid, especially after seeing the details of what they go through to perform at the high caliber level they compete at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community.

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019
R:Yes it has some information for both sides of the story.
A:Jeremy Engle
This source is a news article.
A: No, there were no spelling or grammar errors.
P: Inform, about how different athletes who do not get paid perform in their sport.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A star athlete’s freak injury revives the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019
R: Yes, it agrees with my claim but it also has some other points for the counterclaim
A: Harvard College
Peter Carfagna
It reveals that it is a schools newspaper that it is being written for.
A: No there were no spelling or grammar errors.
P: Inform or debate about the different factors that could happen if colleges paid athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the men's basketball tournament known as March Madness edges closer to crowning another national champion, the debate over whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) exploits some of its student-athletes has reached a high-water mark.

In a ruling on Wednesday, a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Chicago said that football players at Northwestern University were employees of the private school and therefore had the right to unionize, setting up the possibility of the first labor union in college sports. A Northwestern spokesman said the university will appeal the ruling to the full NLRB in Washington. The NCAA, which was not a party to the proceeding but would be affected by unionizing, said on its website: "We strongly disagree with the notion that student-athletes are employees."

This week, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan '87, a former Harvard basketball star, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that universities should consider tying bonus pay for college coaches and athletic directors to the academic performance and graduation rates of athletes, not team wins and losses. Duncan also criticized some university presidents and boards for not doing enough to ensure that the tail of athletics doesn't wag the academic dog. While it is a member of the NCAA, Harvard offers only need-based financial aid.

Other pending legal challenges seek to test NCAA policies that strictly limit the amount of money that student-athletes can receive while playing; contest the number, value, and length of scholarships that schools can offer each year; and question whether athletes should get long-term financial help for injuries sustained while playing sports. There is also a class-action claim over concussions.

In one notable case, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon wants to bar the NCAA from limiting how much money student-athletes can receive while playing and to collect damages for the NCAA's use of players' images, likenesses, and names without permission. A trial is scheduled to begin June 9 in California. Last year, the NCAA took in $913 million, generated primarily from merchandise sales and broadcast rights.

Peter Carfagna is a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School (HLS) and runs its sports law clinic. A practicing sports law attorney, he spoke with the Gazette about the debate over compensation for student-athletes and the pending legal challenges to the NCAA's authority.

GAZETTE: What are your thoughts on the ruling in favor of the Northwestern University football players?

CARFAGNA: A huge surprise, an upset victory by the union side of the competition here. I don't think many close observers of the scene anticipated the result. It was a close call at best. They scored the first touchdown. But the game continues, to use a football metaphor, because Northwestern is going to be appealing it. A surprising result. The whole legal world, not just the sports legal world, is watching this unionization effort. For the Teamsters and other unions, this has become important to them, for obvious reasons, but when you micro it down to the world of college sports ... it's really a tectonic shift in how college sports would have to operate if this ruling is upheld.

GAZETTE: How would the business of college sports be affected if the NCAA were required to compensate many student-athletes?

CARFAGNA: It wouldn't necessarily jump right to that - that's what everybody's jumping to. But it would mean, "we'll sit down at the table," like we would have to with any collective-bargaining unit, and we would negotiate terms and conditions of employment. So, start with health and safety issues they feel are not adequately addressed under the current system, I know that's a big part of it, health and safety. Certainly you have to pay the player at least sharing in and being compensated in a thoroughgoing and fair way. [The player] would be right up there at the negotiating table, and then that becomes the ebb and flow of the negotiation and who knows how that would come out?

Certainly, you've got the O'Bannon case out there, a $40 million settlement already, over licensing and royalties from video games. So that's $40 million that EA Sports and Collegiate Licensing have paid to be done with that suit. You don't pay $40 million if there isn't some merit, and the NCAA continues to defend that suit, so you've got one flank over here where you've got a huge liability staring at you right in the face on paying them for the use of their name, likeness, and image - that's one problem they'd have to deal with at this hypothetical negotiating table.

Second is the concussion litigations that are pending against the NCAA. . . . And thirdly, there's two putative class actions pending against the NCAA going from tuition, room, and board to "full cost of attendance," which would mean anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 or more per year per student-athlete, which has been on the table for the last few years, which harkens back to a $228 million settlement the NCAA entered into on that very same issue a few years ago. To me, all of those things would be on the table, and then the negotiations would likely replicate what happens between the NFL and its players' association and the NBA and its players' association, in which agreements would protect the NCAA from all this litigation under federal labor exemption.

GAZETTE: The NCAA is currently facing a number of lawsuits on issues around scholarship rules, compensation, head injuries, medical costs, etc. O'Bannon's attorney has said that his case has wider implications and could set the stage for broad reforms to the way many college athletes are treated. Is he right? And if so, how might that play out?

CARFAGNA: We've had Ed up at Harvard; he was on a panel for us. I agree with all that. Consideration is the scholarship grant for tuition, room, and board by the NCAA, and the scholarship grant letter itself says, essentially, just paraphrasing: While you're a student-athlete, you hereby grant us the right to use your name/image/likeness for the promotion of our sport, our school, our events. Now, it's very fuzzily worded. What does an 18-year-old Ed O'Bannon know when UCLA offers him that letter and he signs it? Well, he's essentially waived his rights as claimant in perpetuity. What the lawyer's getting at, what Ed said when he came to our panel was, "It's a contract of adhesion; I didn't know what I was signing. Sure, I understood while I was playing there they could use me, but now I'm in a video game and they're selling my numbered jersey without my name on it, and that's not right."

The point is the limitation of that waiver. Because the NCAA says, "In perpetuity we own your name, image, and likeness for all purposes," and the answer coming back is "Well, no, maybe while I'm a student-athlete, but afterward if you're making money off of me, you've got to pay me, or create a trust fund that I can petition for payment." It goes so far as to say current athletes should share in media rights. So ... he's saying, and the judge has allowed those claims to continue for current media rights. That would really be big, worth hundreds of millions of dollars for March Madness. . . . It would seem to me that when you're playing, those rights belong to a school and the NCAA, but the judge let it ride.

GAZETTE: Given that the cost of NCAA scholarships represents only a tiny fraction of the financial value that student-athletes bring to their respective schools, are such student-athletes "exploited employees," as some argue?

CARFAGNA: Taylor Branch, who's a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and really made his life's work studying the history of slavery - he came to our class last fall and talked about his new book. He wrote an article called "The Shame of College Sports" that he's turned into a book, "Cartel." There's a documentary called "Schooled" that was shown during my class last fall. I have to remain neutral, because then I have representatives from the other side come and talk about why the scholarship grant is fair consideration. To answer your question, Taylor says this is slavery, this is involuntary servitude, and makes that case very effectively. And there were many in the audience who agreed with him.

And then are others who say, like Warren Zola - he runs the professional sports counseling panel at Boston College - and he'll take the other side of the issue for a good school like BC, which graduates 90+ percent of its student-athletes. ... If you want my opinion, I think full cost of attendance is appropriate, at least. But that would raise all sorts of Title IX issues. Many schools simply could not afford it.

GAZETTE: What is a reasonable way to compensate student-athletes while also satisfying the NCAA's interest in maintaining some league parity so that the richest and/or most motivated schools can't simply "buy up" the best athletes year after year?

CARFAGNA: When I had [Zola] at class, he said, "Look, there might be a secession movement." The big schools, they don't need the NCAA. They might just say: "See you later; we don't need all these amateurism rules. Why do we need you guys to run our Final Four? Why do we need you administrators to run the BCS [football's Bowl Championship Series]? We'll just take the greatest 64 teams and just have our own conference, and see you later." That's the possible fallout. And he's at BC, which is very competitive in the two major sports and great at hockey. They're kind of at a crossroads.

What does a Duke do? What does an ACC [Atlantic Coast Conference] school with high academic standards do? There's such a wide range of opinion as to what's appropriate. The end of the spectrum is, for these scholarships at a place like BC, at Notre Dame, at Stanford, is full consideration. That's what the NCAA is saying loud and clear: Student-athletes get a free education that would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to Duke, but here it's for free. If it's not broken, don't try to fix it. It's worked for a long time. Their main defense, and it has some merit to it, is "You didn't have to take the scholarship." ... They're saying, "Hey, if you don't like it, we've got 10 more guys in line who are happy to sign that letter and get a free Stanford education."

GAZETTE: Do you agree with Duncan's position, and, if not, what can be done by school administrations to ensure that academics are taken as seriously by coaches as athletics?

CARFAGNA: It's not a one size fits all. Let's take Ohio State: You go across the state, if you put a pinprick on the highest paid state employee - I think it's up to over 30 states - it's the football coach. That's not appropriate, I agree. You take an Alabama: $7 million with bonuses, and that's just what the university pays, not to mention all [other outside compensation], and Nick Saban's making $10 million, probably. That bubble is continuing to explode, whereby coaches are becoming multimillionaires, and they're job shopping, and have carve-outs in their agreements to allow them to hopscotch all around to the next-highest bidder. ... So what should Ohio State, what should the president of [the University of] Alabama do, [given] the pressures on these guys to deliver many millions of dollars back to the university? I don't know. I wouldn't want to be a university president in that situation. It's a tough draw. But yeah, I think all the things Secretary Duncan is saying make sense, and I would agree with him. But who's going to enforce them?
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the men's basketball tournament known as March Madness edges closer to crowning another national champion, the debate over whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) exploits some of its student-athletes has reached a high-water mark.

# data[].attributes.body
C: November 2, 2019
R: It relates to my topic by describing the rules
A: ESPN Youtube
It is a sports websites' youtube page
A: No, there were no spelling or grammar errors
P: Inform about the new rules changing for the NCAA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the NCAA's historic decision to pay athletes for their likeness | SportsCenter

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019

R: Yes, it does.
A: Spencer Bokat-Lindell
This source is a news article

A: No, there were no spelling or grammar errors.
P: Inform or debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing. He writes:

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California, Los Angeles, gymnast, has criticized the unfairness of N.C.A.A. rules that prevented her from making any money from a video of a perfect floor routine that went viral earlier this year. She told Mr. Newsom:

Here's the fame, but then there's no compensation, and it's so crazy. People are like, "Oh, you must be so rich." And I'm like, "You must not know the N.C.A.A." ... When my routine went viral, [N.C.A.A. President] Mark Emmert called me to congratulate me, and I'm like, "You should be thanking me."

In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, "the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively." While the N.C.A.A.'s desire to keep so-called professionalism out of college sports may have made sense before they became such a big business, the author writes, it's clearly an illusion that no longer holds:

The two most lucrative college sports, American football and basketball, are highly competitive. Many universities are willing to bend over backward to enroll talented players. And the argument that university athletics remains amateur would hardly earn passing marks in even an introductory college course.

Removing the N.C.A.A. restrictions on endorsements would create a winner-take-all dynamic within and among universities, writes Cody J. McDavis, a former Division I basketball player. The best players at the best schools would reap all the benefits, Mr. McDavis says, while less popular sports and athletes would suffer. He writes:

Major brands like Nike would pay top football and basketball talent at the biggest schools, while student-athletes in other sports or at smaller programs would be ignored. Currently, corporate funds go to athletic departments and are generally distributed among all sports; with third-party payments, those funds could instead mostly go directly to a few student-athletes, starving the rest.

The N.C.A.A., for its part, has said the California law "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes." Even The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which came out in favor of the law, acknowledges that some change to the spirit of college athletics would be inevitable. They write:

The measure would inevitably eat away at the distinction between professional and college sports. Celebrated collegians could make money not only by endorsing sneakers and sports drinks, but also by autographing jerseys, pitching workout videos and putting their name on baseball bats and hockey sticks. In short, they could profit from the fame that their work as an athlete brings.

As those on opposing sides of California's law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.

Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of "Toward a More Perfect University," suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is " totally out of control." In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education. He writes:

For the highly selective colleges and universities, the leaders ought to roll back the percentage of recruited athletes. ... The highly selective colleges ought to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and form their own league since they are not trying to build national championship programs. ... Finally, university leaders should consider forming special institutions located in different geographic areas that are devoted almost entirely to athletics and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman's president, wrote in The Times in 2013:

Whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments - and die from them - at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity. ... We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.

California's changes aren't scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.

For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. "I don't necessarily take it to heart," Newsom said.
It's the one-month birthday of this newsletter! Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Is there anything you want to see more or less of? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com to tell us what you think so we can make it even better for you.
Jemele Hill makes the case for black athletes to leave white colleges for historically black ones. [The Atlantic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
C: 2019
R: It has some information that could be useful
A: Danny Kanell
It is on a sports website
A: No, there is no spelling or grammar errors
P: Inform about the topics with paying college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Regarding the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid, Danny Kanell acknowledges that these players are receiving the opportunity of an education and the experiences that go along with it, which is a privilege in itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college players be paid? - ESPN Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regarding the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid, Danny Kanell acknowledges that these players are receiving the opportunity of an education and the experiences that go along with it, which is a privilege in itself.

# data[].attributes.body
C: October 28,2019
R: It has some points that agrees with my claim.
A: Dan Murphy
It is a sports website
A: No, there were no spelling or grammar errors.
P: Inform about how different schools are thinking about letting college athletse get paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oct 28, 2019

Dan MurphyESPN Staff Writer

Close

Covers the Big Ten

Joined ESPN.com in 2014

Graduate of the University of Notre Dame

The NCAA's top decision-makers will meet Tuesday in Atlanta for their first formal discussion about modifying rules that currently prohibit college athletes from making money by selling the rights to their names, images or likenesses.

The association's long-held policy regarding that aspect of amateurism is under increasing pressure from state and federal legislators who believe college athletes deserve an opportunity to collect money from endorsements. The NCAA board of governors is expecting to hear recommendations on how to move forward from Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East commissioner Val Ackerman, who are spearheading a committee that has spent the past five months evaluating options for a more modern path forward.

This week's meeting will be the first official gathering of the board since the state of California passed a law that will make it illegal for schools in that state to punish athletes for accepting endorsement money starting in 2023. More than a dozen other states are considering similar laws. Two U.S. congressmen are also in different stages of proposing legislation that would have a similar effect nationwide.

Rep. Mark Walker, a Republican from North Carolina, held a roundtable discussion in Washington, D.C., two weeks ago to rally support for his legislation. Walker said he is hopeful that he can get Congress to vote on the bill by next spring and potentially implement a national law by January 2021.

"We feel like they've given us no choice," Walker said. "We have to drag them to the table because they have promised year after year to address such an egregious situation, but they've refused to do that."

The NCAA is willing to evolve, according to Michael Drake, president of Ohio State University and chairman of the NCAA's board of governors. Drake said in August that the NCAA wants to make sure any change that occurs won't destroy the line that separates college sports from professional leagues. That would likely mean regulating potential endorsement deals in some fashion and sets up a battle between those who wish to see an unrestricted market for college athlete endorsement deals and others who believe some degree of oversight is necessary. With one state law with virtually no restrictions already passed and many others in motion, it's not clear whether the NCAA has waited too long to control the direction of how it evolves.

Discussions about how to handle the fair compensation of college athletes have ramped up among athletic directors and NCAA officials in recent years. The "existential threat" of athletes making money, as NCAA president Mark Emmert deemed it earlier this year, has been a vexing problem looming on the horizon for more than a decade. According to multiple college sports industry insiders, the demand to share a bigger piece of their multibillion-dollar pie with athletes is only shocking because of how suddenly it has to come to a head.

Amateurism has been a central tenet of the NCAA's mission for more than a century. In the past decade, though, pressure from civil lawsuits has chipped away at the hard-to-define line separating college sports from the professional ranks. As more money has poured into the industry via television contracts and school-wide apparel deals, those lawsuits have spurred the NCAA to expand the list of benefits provided to athletes to include items such as unlimited meals, access to an emergency fund and a stipend to pay for the cost of attending school not covered by a traditional scholarship.

To date, all of those adjustments haven't changed the opinion of the U.S. court system that college athletes are students, not employees of the schools they attend. The added benefits have remained, as the Ninth Circuit Court explained in a recent appeal ruling, "tethered to education."

The chief concern among NCAA stakeholders with each new erosion of amateurism rules is that the next step will be the one that changes the court's opinion. If college athletes are viewed as professionals in the eyes of the law, the NCAA and its members would be subject to a hornet's nest of antitrust and labor issues that could collapse their current business model.

Some believe that a wide-open market on name, image and likeness deals like the one Walker has proposed would be a step too far on a slippery slope that leads to professionalized college sports.

A recent public opinion poll conducted by Seton Hall University found that 60% of respondents were in favor of college athletes being allowed to make money from their name, image or likeness.

Athletic directors throughout the country aren't far behind the public, according to Lead1 president Tom McMillen. The former basketball player and Maryland congressman runs an organization whose goal is to organize hundreds of athletic directors in their efforts to influence NCAA rules. McMillen said most of his group members have accepted that change is inevitable, but are hoping to set the terms on two key parameters of future rules about name, image and likeness.

The first is the creation of a uniform, national rule. A state-by-state approach could create major headaches for the NCAA and its members if they are forced to navigate (and potentially fight legal battles against) a variety of different laws all aimed at the same purpose.

"You simply can't do that," Emmert told the Indianapolis Star earlier this month. "It doesn't make sense. It can't be done."

NCAA stakeholders also want to chart a course forward that provides for a way to regulate the new market of endorsement deals. Walker's proposed bill currently creates an unrestricted open market for college athletes. The only major restriction in the California law -- written by Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner -- keeps athletes from signing deals that would conflict with university sponsorships. For example, an athlete playing for a school that has an apparel contract with Nike couldn't accept money to wear Adidas shoes during games or other team functions.

Proponents of a more regulated approach say it would protect athletes from "bad actors" taking advantage of them and from unsustainable new additions to schedules that are already jam-packed with classes, practices and other obligations. Regulation would also allow schools to potentially weed out boosters willing to pay well above fair market value to an athlete as a recruiting incentive. McMillen and his constituents see that as an important distinction to keep a new model from sliding too far into the realm of payments being directly tied to an athlete's performance in his or her sport.

"The concern the athletic directors have is about guardrails," McMillen said. "I think most accept the fact that this is coming and they just want to make sure this is a regulated market."

The NCAA's best hope for getting guardrails in place may reside in an office just a few floors below Walker's in Washington. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) said he plans to introduce a second federal bill on college athlete compensation at some point in the near future. Gonzalez, a former NFL wide receiver and an All-Big Ten performer at Ohio State, said he is in favor of allowing athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness while also guarding against unintended negative consequences.

The NCAA rule-making process typically moves on a regular calendar. Proposals for rule changes are due by the start of November -- although exceptions have been made to allow for more time in the past -- and final decisions usually come from the board of governors in April. If the NCAA wants to be certain that it can lay out its own rules before state or federal laws change their business for them, they may need to act in this academic year's legislative cycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA set to mull letting college athletes get paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oct 28, 2019 Dan MurphyESPN Staff Writer Close Covers the Big Ten Joined ESPN.com in 2014 Graduate of the University of Notre Dame The NCAA's top decision-makers will meet Tuesday in Atlanta for their first formal discussion about modifying rules that currently prohibit college athletes from making money by selling the rights to their names, images or likenesses.