# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education should be the college athlete's greatest compensation.

Not a slice of the billions of dollars paid for TV rights for their games. Not a pay-for-play contract like their NBA and NFL brethren. The biggest crime in college sports isn't that the system is rigged against paying college athletes, it's that money-worshipping American culture is set up against educating them.

The clamor to pay players arose anew this week when North Carolina basketball coach Roy Williams earned $925,000 in bonuses after his team won the national championship. "The players got awesome T-shirts and hats," observed Associated Press sports writer Tim Reynolds in a viral tweet.

The NCAA collects $1.1 billion per year from CBS and Turner for broadcast rights to the basketball tournament. ESPN pays $470 million annually for the College Football Playoff. Conferences and individual colleges make additional millions during the regular season. Many have compellingly argued for years that, morally and legally, the players deserve to pocket some of that windfall.

They do. But our Money Over Everything society is minimizing or ignoring what's currently within players' grasp, which should last far longer than a six-figure revenue-sharing check.

Right now, college players receive up to six figures' worth of higher education, plus the life-changing opportunity to elevate intellect and character. Yes, athletes are too often pushed into fake classes to keep them eligible, as in the infamous North Carolina academic scandal that threatens the Tar Heels' championship, or hindered from serious study by the 40-hour-per-week demands of their sport. But these athletes, and generations of their descendants, would benefit more from reforming their educational experiences than from extra cash.

Let's look at what those North Carolina ballers receive from their athletic scholarships.

Start with four years of tuition, fees, room and board that total $80,208 for in-state students and $180,536 for those from outside North Carolina. Add the benefit of a diploma from a top institution with an influential and passionate alumni network. UNC is nationally ranked the No. 5 public university and the No. 30 college overall. The name "North Carolina" on LinkedIn or a resume opens doors and gets phone calls returned - and that's without including "2017 NCAA champion." And for the majority of UNC players who won't make NBA millions, lifetime earnings for college graduates are 66 percent higher than those with just a high school diploma. That can be worth more than an additional $1 million.

Then there are the intangibles.

"People ask all the time why I'm one of the youngest college presidents in the country, and one of the only African-Americans leading a private national university," said Chris Howard, 48, who leads Robert Morris University in suburban Pittsburgh and played football at the Air Force Academy. "I credit a big chunk of that to my experience playing college athletics. I know it sounds kind of cliché, but attention to detail, discipline, teamwork, resiliency, learning how to deal with others, deal with people that are of different backgrounds. It was just a melting pot. It was a leadership lab for me."

After finishing college, Howard flew helicopters, served in Afghanistan and Liberia, became a Rhodes scholar and got a Harvard MBA. "All those intangibles kind of laid the path. The path was laid by playing D-I football first," he said.

Rather than an unfair burden, Howard sees the demands placed on college athletes as a down payment on a successful future.

"You'll be a better human being when you learn to handle that load," he said. "You'll be a better father, better husband, better brother, better sister. You'll be a better professional as an engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, a business manager."

The pay-for-play crowd loves to holler, "Intangibles don't pay the bills."

College athletes certainly should receive enough compensation to cover living expenses. Their families should travel free to games. Some sort of trust fund sounds fair. But the intangible value of higher education is worth more than pizza or gas money.

Martin Luther King Jr. described it while a student at Morehouse College:

"Most of the 'brethren' think that education should equip them with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses," King wrote in 1947 at age 21. "Still others think that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end."

"Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education," King wrote.

The real problem is, too many athletes are blocked from coming within a Hail Mary of that ideal.

"I would suggest that a lot of these kids aren't getting an education. They're just sitting in class," said Leonard Moore, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who is founder of the Black Student-Athlete Summit.

Moore has tutored, counseled and mentored athletes while teaching at Ohio State, Louisiana State and now Texas. He says most big-time athletes are limited to easy majors and prevented from taking advantage of many educational benefits because "revenue-generating sports are now year-round enterprises."

"You can't take a class after 1 o'clock. You can't study abroad in the summer. You can't get an internship on Wall Street or Silicon Valley," he said. "The question then becomes how do these student-athletes take advantage of everything that a place like Texas or UCLA has to offer? I would argue that it monopolizes all their time. The only thing they can do is go to class, go to work out and then go lift, and then go to the meeting and then go to class."

"I never understood why a football team has to practice in February when their first game of the season is in September," Moore said.

Money is the biggest reason.

The University of Texas football team generated $121 million in revenue and a staggering $92 million profit in 2015. The business of college sports is so entrenched, Moore doesn't believe it's possible to make the players real students again.

"Just because you value education doesn't mean [the athlete] values it," he said. "If it's basketball that got me on an airplane, that's taken me to another state, that's taken me out of the country, you know what I'm saying? Basketball has definitely helped me move forward in life. You say a four-year education, that doesn't mean anything. That's important in your value system, but it ain't important in mine.

"Right now, it seems like they value the money and that we all value the money," Moore continued. "That's the athletes. That's the university. Our society values the money, and so we say, 'Look, they need to be paid. We need to pay them, pay them, pay them.' Instead of saying, 'We need to educate, educate, educate.' "

Efforts are being made. Over the past 15 years, graduation rates have risen from 46 to 77 percent for all black NCAA basketball players, and from 76 to 94 percent for white players. The NCAA gave Division I schools $45 million last year for academic programs and services.

But ballplayers can still get a sociology degree in three years while reading just one book. The clamor for cash still prevails. Demanding short-term gratification feels better than pursuing long-term goals.

A starting point for reform would be guaranteeing athletic scholarships for four years, instead of one, and providing free tuition, room and board for as long as it takes ex-players to graduate. Freed from the demand to produce revenue, these young athletes could finally obtain the incalculable benefits of a real college education.

Capitalism dictates that college players be paid fairly for the entertainment they provide. If money is life's ultimate goal, the buck stops there.

Or here: "Capitalism is always in danger," King said, "of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life."

Jesse Washington is a senior writer for The Undefeated. You can find him giving dudes the bizness on a basketball court near you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big-time college athletes should be paid with big-time educations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education should be the college athlete's greatest compensation. Not a slice of the billions of dollars paid for TV rights for their games. Not a pay-for-play contract like their NBA and NFL brethren. The biggest crime in college sports isn't that the system is rigged against paying college athletes, it's that money-worshipping American culture is set up against educating them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ MoneyWatch

Elite college athletes could pocket tens of thousands of dollars annually during their school years once the NCAA officially allows them to score sponsorships and endorsements. A wider pool of athletes without prominent profiles could earn smaller amounts off local deals that would at least make life on a student budget more livable.

An NCAA announcement earlier this week directed its three divisions to allow student-athletes "to benefit from their name, image and likeness." Student athletes won't see the multi-million-dollar deals that professionals enjoy, but top-tier students at schools with elite basketball and football programs - especially in big-sports states like California, Texas, Kentucky and North Carolina - could bank upwards of hundreds of thousands during their college careers, according to experts in sports branding.

Especially intriguing, the experts say, is the potential for athletic sponsorship deals that never existed before in small to mid-sized markets that don't have professional teams and therefore lack a pool of stars to tap for such promotions.

Local businesses will likely be eager to tap student-athletes who connect with fans, said Tim Derdenger, a sports marketing and branding expert and professor at Carnegie Mellon University. For instance, a sports gym in Bloomington, Indiana - home of Indiana University - could land a college basketball player endorsement, while a golf course in Stillwater, Oklahoma, might reach out to an Oklahoma State University golfer, Derdenger said.

"Imagine you're a car dealer and you're in a city like Dayton, Ohio," said Kelly O'Keefe, a Virginia Commonwealth professor and branding expert. "Dayton has a good [college] basketball team, but their players aren't known outside the local level. But in Dayton, they're heroes. So, if I'm a car dealer, I'm looking at this as an opportunity to sponsor a local athlete."

500,000 athletes in play

Bigger athletic brands such as Adidas are likely to be selective, but could still be interested in tapping the student-athlete market at some 1,100 NCAA member schools educating a total of 500,000 young men and women.

"In the marketing offices of Nike and Under Armour, they're looking at individual athletes and programs who have the most promising records and who look like a good bet for the future," O'Keefe said.

The experts based their numbers on deals that college athletes have received after they recently turned pro, adding that a definite range doesn't exist yet because the market for college athlete endorsements hasn't been created. One example is when Golfer Justin Suh left the University of Southern California this past summer and turned pro and soon after signed a three-year endorsement deal with Titleist reportedly valued between $500,000 and $750,000.

"Keep the pressure high"

The NCAA has long been criticized for generating billions in revenue but not sharing those dollars with student-athletes who take to field and court for games.

The NCAA's governing board gave each division a January 2021 deadline to modify their rules. Since Tuesday's announcement, public figures have questioned the noncommittal, broad-strokes language the association used to explain the next steps.

Jeremy Bloom, a former Olympic skier, tweeted "Don't buy the NCAA hype." Bloom noted that the NCAA's announcement mentioned name, image and likeness rights "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

Here's my statement on the big news today regarding the @NCAA's name, image and likeness press release: pic.twitter.com/fYrJItJf0i
- Jeremy Bloom (@JeremyBloom11) October 30, 2019

"What in the world does that mean?" Bloom tweeted. "Bottom line, state legislators need to continue down the path and keep the pressure high while the NCAA figures out how to hold up their house of cards."

Nancy Skinner, a California senator who co-sponsored a new state law for student-athlete compensation that takes effect in 2023, also pointed at the NCAA's language.

California's leadership is a game-changer once again!

The NCAA's announcement shows promise on giving college athletes' NIL rights. But the devil is in the details on what the NCAA means by adhering to the "collegiate model" in its new rules. https://t.co/liaOfH6TOO
- Nancy Skinner (@NancySkinnerCA) October 29, 2019

"The NCAA's announcement shows promise on giving college athletes' name, image and likeness rights," she said in a tweeted statement. "But the devil is in the details on what the NCAA means by adhering to the 'collegiate model' in its new rules."

One injury away from never playing again

Local sponsorship dollars that experts are predicting, though not in the millions, are still likely to be significant for students because "they're always one injury away from never being able to play again," O'Keefe said. The sponsorships are "a little bit of money they can sock away for a rainy day," he added.

Henry Hebda, a junior football player at Indiana's Valparaiso University, said extra money from sponsorships would help student-athletes who are upperclassmen pay rent and utilities if they move to off-campus housing. The money could also go toward nutrition supplements for weight training and body conditioning, he noted.

"It would definitely help some of us get extra food that we need to gain weight," said Hebda, 20, who plays cornerback. "People spend a lot of money on that and on buying post-workout drinks."

Moriyah Hamell, a freshman basketball player at Niagara University in Lewiston, New York, said she doesn't have a job while attending school. She said she's living solely off a refund check from her student loans. The opportunity to profit from an endorsement or sponsorship would help all college athletes feel more financially stable, she said.

"Having money from the outside means you can buy whatever you want or need," said Hamell, 18. "And me, not coming from a financially wealthy family, I would use that to buy a winter coat or boots."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA athletes getting paid: Thousands could be in their futures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Local companies in mid-size markets could be especially eager to land college-athlete endorsements, sports experts say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid.

O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

"I just think that along with their possible degrees that they are getting, they should be compensated for it."

While the NCAA has 17 official corporate sponsors that have each paid the organization $10 million to $35 million, O'Bannon said the athletes' compensation doesn't have to be $1 million but just a "little something" to recognize that they are bringing in money to their schools.

Read More Sweet 16 a slam dunk for advertisers

Nearly five years ago, O'Bannon sued the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company over the use of his name and image.

Lawyers for O'Bannon reached a $40 million settlement with EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles licensing rates for many universities. However, the case against the NCAA is still working its way through the courts.

Last August, a federal judge ruled the association violated antitrust law by prohibiting college athletes from being compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses. The court also ordered that schools be allowed to offer athletes full cost-of-attendance scholarships and put up to $5,000 per athlete, per year of eligibility, into a trust.

The NCAA has appealed the decision. Oral arguments were held last week in the case.

At the time it filed the appeal, the NCAA said it did not believe it violated antitrust laws.

"In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the Association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in a statement last August.

Read More Pay for play: NCAA schools keep eye on legal cases

O'Bannon said the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about righting a wrong.

"If a company or someone was to use your likeness then you should be compensated for it, at the very least asked if your likeness can be used."

Since the legal action, the issue has grown from using a college athlete's likeness to whether he or she should be paid while in school.

For O'Bannon, the biggest thing is that the conversation is now happening.

"I feel strongly that if everyone involved can get together and talk about things they can work things out, whether it be pay when you are in school or collecting when your eligibility is up."

-CNBC's Steven Desaulniers, CNBC's Eric Chemi and Alicia Jessop contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes should be compensated: Former UCLA star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid. O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
Jan 29, 2020

Close
Graham Hays covers college sports for espnW, including softball and soccer. Hays began with ESPN in 1999.

We know there will be a new player of the year in college softball, even if her hold on the honor is even more fleeting than usual.

Instead of a third consecutive season as the best player in the college game, UCLA's Rachel Garcia is going for gold with Team USA this year. UCLA outfielder Bubba Nickles and Arizona catcher Dejah Mulipola join her, putting their college achievements on hold for the upcoming season. Add in the normal matriculation of last year's seniors, stars like Taran Alvelo, Kelly Barnhill and Sydney Romero, and a spring of change awaits.

Not that college softball is left without any star power. Whether they're chasing home-run records, returning from redshirt seasons or preparing for Olympic experiences with teams that will hope to keep Team USA from gold, the top 25 players in college softball are ready to roll.

Washington won a national championship with a pitcher who had Olympic experience and a foreign passport when Danielle Lawrie led the Huskies to glory a decade ago. Now, Plain will try that in reverse order, attempting to win an NCAA title before leading Australia to Tokyo. And with Garcia sitting out to train with Team USA, Plain inherits the No. 1 ranking. She isn't the two-way threat Garcia is (few players ever were), but the 6-foot Aussie and UCLA's ace had almost identical pitching numbers a season ago. Only a junior, Plain has already pitched nearly 35 innings in the Women's College World Series. She's ready for all that 2020 has to offer.

Bates is as exciting to watch as any player in recent memory. She seems to enjoy the game as much as anyone in recent memory. But put the viral highlights and charisma aside. She's also simply as good an all-around shortstop as almost anyone who has come down the pipe in recent years. She ranked seventh in the Pac-12 in on-base percentage and was one of five players in that league with double-digit steals and at least a .460 on-base percentage. Errors and assists are woefully incomplete defensive measures, but even those blunt instruments say something when a shortstop piles up 111 assists while committing just two errors.

She enters the season with 66 career home runs, 11 more than any other Division I player. But it is who she is chasing that could become one of the stories of the season. Harper is 29 home runs behind NCAA all-time leader Lauren Chamberlain. And that happens to be exactly how many home runs she hit for the Wildcats a season ago. A not-inconsequential consolation prize would be passing Katiyana Mauga for the Arizona and Pac-12 records -- she needs 27 home runs to do that. The power alone would get her in the top 10, but providing those home runs while also playing a commendable shortstop is all the more impressive.

It wasn't the ending she or the Sooners wanted in the final series against UCLA, but Juarez delivered as advertised in her first season in Oklahoma. After a 26-6 record and 1.22 ERA as a sophomore at Arizona State, she went 28-4 with a 1.39 ERA a season ago. Few pitchers can match that, and no one matches her in the strikeout department. She's the only returning pitcher in a major conference who worked at least 100 innings and struck out at least 10 batters per seven innings. Even with Mariah Lopez now at Arizona, Oklahoma's remaining depth should keep Juarez from having to go much more than 200 innings.

Alabama associate coach and first base coach Alyson Habetz was about the only person in Tuscaloosa who saw more of first base than Hemphill did a season ago. Whether trotting past the base after one of her 26 home runs or hanging out there courtesy of a .524 on-base percentage, Hemphill made life miserable for pitchers. The home runs set an Alabama single-season record, no small feat when Kelly Kretschman is an alum, and matched the SEC single-season record. Plus she was at her best when it mattered, going 13-for-28 with four home runs and 14 RBIs in Alabama's final 10 games -- against Arizona, Arizona State, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

There isn't an official comeback player of the year award in college softball, but surely we can agree that Morganne Flores lived the criteria a season ago. After missing the entire 2018 season with a knee injury, Flores started 59 games in 2019, mostly at one of the more demanding positions, and set career highs in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Only four players in the Pac-12 finished with more total bases, and only three players in the nation hit more home runs. Now the redshirt senior gets one more chance to win the national championship we'll always wonder if Washington might have won with her in 2018.

Alo put together the kind of run production as a sophomore that stacks up favorably with just about any season by any player in the country. It's her misfortune that one of the few seasons it didn't match was her own record-breaking freshman campaign. No, Alo didn't hit 30 home runs or lead major conference players with a slugging percentage close to 1.000, both things she did as a freshman in 2018. But she still ranks among the top 20 returnees in Power 5 conferences in slugging percentage. She's still the Big 12 returning leader in on-base percentage. That's a sophomore slump that most players would love to suffer.

There are a lot of programs in the SEC and Pac-12 that would give untold fortunes to have a pitching lineage like the one Minnesota has from Sara Moulton to Sara Groenewegen to Fiser over roughly the past decade. And Fiser may just leave the greatest legacy of them all by the time she wraps up her stay in the Twin Cities. She isn't likely to catch Moulton in wins or Groenewegen in strikeouts, but she's the one who pitched the Gophers to Oklahoma City with a 31-9 record, 1.27 ERA and 346 strikeouts a season ago. That soaring strikeout rate was huge. Roughly 30% of her outs came that way in 2018; nearly 45% did in 2019.

For the first time in a long time, pitching is a question mark for the Seminoles. But there isn't a lack of proven greatness in Tallahassee, not as long as Sherrill anchors the lineup. She was even better as a sophomore than as a freshman -- and she was a big reason Florida State won a national title when she was a freshman. She turned some of the gap power of her debut, when she tied the NCAA single-season record for doubles, into home run power in her second season. And she did that while striking out less and walking more.

There were a lot of good hitters in the Pac-12 last season. So many good hitters, in fact, that three of them are now playing with Team USA. And yet for all of that talent, no one had more total bases in Pac-12 games than Hackbarth in her second season in Tempe. Just for good measure, she also tied for the lead in stolen bases in league games. The Sun Devils play a home-loaded schedule early in the season, understandably given climate and facility. But there was nothing soft or schedule-aided about the power and speed she displayed last spring.

11. Megan Kleist, P, Louisiana-Lafayette
2018 key stats (at Oregon): 21-7, 1.32 ERA, 0.74 WHIP

Megan Good was last year's wild card, the pitcher who returned after missing an entire season with injury and nearly led James Madison to the World Series. The Pac-12 Pitcher of the Year the last we saw her at Oregon in 2018, Kleist sat out last season after joining the exodus from Oregon following Mike White's departure. With a career 1.60 ERA, she could mirror Good's effect on another mid-major program that has long played far beyond the confines of that label.

Although she played for the Longhorns in the fall, it will still be good for most of us to simply see Elish back on a softball field for the first time in a regular-season game after the horrific injury that ended her 2019 season. Prior to that moment, when she was struck in the face by a throw during an NCAA tournament game at Alabama, she had put together a stellar two-way season as a transfer from Oregon. Even if not as dominant in the circle as she was in her sensational sophomore season with the Ducks, she made the most of an increasing offensive role with .928 OPS.

Even with a 21-6 record and 1.39 ERA, Fouts didn't have to do it all for the Tide. She had help from the likes of Sarah Cornell, who didn't miss this list by all that much. But after some bumps -- 30% of the earned runs she allowed came in a stretch of eight appearances from the SEC tournament through opening day in the Women's College World Series -- look at how she closed. With the season on the line, she threw a three-hit shutout against Arizona and a four-hit, eight-inning shutout against Oklahoma. That says plenty about where she goes from here.

Sunseri would probably make this list if all she did was hit and play the field. That's what happens considering she compiled a 1.216 OPS while playing in a conference as good as the SEC. After flashing power potential in an injury-delayed freshman season in 2018, she showed off the finished product a season ago. But she took an even bigger step in the circle, going from just 13 innings as a freshman to a reliable arm who led the Tigers in innings pitched as a sophomore.

She probably isn't going to win 39 games or pitch 270-plus innings again with Kleist around to share the load, but isn't it nice to know that she can? With the possible exception of Minnesota's Amber Fiser, Ellyson rose to the occasion better than anyone a season ago. She handled 73% of Louisiana's innings in the circle, easily the greatest percentage of any pitcher on this list. And despite those extra innings, she improved her strikeout rate from 6.5 to 9.1 per seven innings.

A lot of misery went into Palomino-Cardoza getting a fifth season after two ACL tears, but Arizona is mighty grateful she is still around. All she's done when on the field is produce runs about as consistently as anyone, posting consecutive slugging percentages of .711, .750 and .787. Her numbers in Pac-12 play a season ago were even essentially identical to her numbers out of conference. Among players eligible to return this season, only Morganne Flores, Kindra Hackbarth, Jessie Harper and Bubba Nickles had more total bases in Pac-12 games.

It has been a while, perhaps since the World Series days of Eileen Canney more than a decade ago, that Northwestern had a pitcher with numbers like these. Williams burst on the scene in the Big Ten with a dominant debut season. She ranked sixth nationally in strikeout-to-walk ratio, right between Taran Alvelo and Rachel Garcia, and ninth in strikeouts per seven innings. And just for good measure, she hit three home runs in a suggestion of two-way greatness to come.

If she's a few spots lower than she was a season ago, it's mostly an indication of how fine the margins are in trying to separate players who don't have many flaws. Lindaman was just about everything she was anticipated to be in her first season after transferring from Minnesota. She lost some slugging percentage points in the move to the SEC, which is understandable given the pitching involved, but it's telling that she actually slugged better in conference (.685) than out. As she got comfortable, she got better. That's bad news for the rest of the SEC.

It's too easy to overlook how good Jordan has been through two seasons. She had a freshman season for the ages, yet saw that effort overshadowed by Jocelyn Alo's record-setting debut for Oklahoma. Then Jordan went out and nearly duplicated her numbers -- the difference between 2018 and 2019 working out to essentially a single every six games. But that came alongside the sheer star wattage emitted by Rachel Garcia and even Bubba Nickles. With those two sitting out this season because of the Olympics, UCLA will be thrilled if Jordan keeps on keeping on.

It's a new era for Mississippi State, as Samantha Ricketts steps into the head coaching role. But the former Bulldogs assistant will be grateful she isn't starting from scratch in filling out a lineup card. Along with Fa Leilua, Davidson is a run producer with the potential to provide a lot of job security. She's already 10th among active Division I players in career home runs, and she's only a junior. The only thing left for Davidson to do to claim a spot in the top 10 -- or even higher -- is maintain her run production and plate discipline all the way through SEC play.

Well, that was worth the wait. Injuries effectively silenced Konwent's first two years at Wisconsin. She didn't play at all in 2018. All of which meant she went from 33 career at-bats in those first two years to Big Ten Player of the year in her third year. She ranked fourth nationally in on-base percentage a season ago and is easily the returning leader among players in a major conference (.582 to .524). It's no wonder no one wanted to throw to her with 37 extra-base hits.

They don't waste much time making an impression at Oklahoma, do they? Following in the freshman footsteps of Lauren Chamberlain, Sydney Romero, Jocelyn Alo and others, Green ranked eighth among Division I freshmen in slugging percentage and third among those in a major conference. She finished the season playing for a national championship and hitting between Alo and Shay Knighten in the lineup. That's a pretty good debut effort.

She's going to end up starting around 230 games at second base in her career, which is reason enough to put her on the list. People don't own positions like that at programs as competitive as Arizona. But she does more than show up. After two seasons in which she was very good with the promise of more to come, Carranco capitalized on the potential. Only UCLA's Kelli Godin had a better average among Pac-12 players, and Carranco had 43 more total bases.

Her time as understudy is finished, at least for now. With Rachel Garcia absent, Faraimo will likely make far more than the 21 starts she made as a freshman. The challenge is to see whether the promise she showed in more limited innings -- including a nearly 7-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio and a strikeout rate comparable to Garcia's -- holds true against all comers this season. Helping the United States to a WBSC Under-19 world title last summer was a good start.

Expand this list to a top 50, still select company, and Arkansas might end up among the teams with the most representatives. With Braxton Burnside, Danielle Gibson, Mary Haff and the impeccably named Autumn Storms around, this could be a special season in Fayetteville. But for now, McEwen carries the banner. Whether she hits home runs, as was the case her freshman year, or doubles, as was the case a season ago, she's going to create runs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ranking the 25 best NCAA softball players in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jan 29, 2020 Close Graham Hays covers college sports for espnW, including softball and soccer. Hays began with ESPN in 1999. We know there will be a new player of the year in college softball, even if her hold on the honor is even more fleeting than usual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Discussion Forum

Institute of Sports Law and Ethics, Santa Clara University

Preface

The Institute of Sports Law and Ethics (ISLE) has a strong focus on the ethical aspects of sports. In September, 2012, ISLE presented its third annual symposium, "The Role of Sports in Higher Education" (see http://law.scu.edu/sportslaw/). Widely divergent views on this controversial subject were voiced at the Symposium, from op-ed columnist Joe Nocera of the New York Times (a vociferous critic of NCAA policies) to Wallace Renfro (an NCAA Senior Vice President responsible for NCAA policies), and all points in-between.

There was a particular focus on the issue of whether college athletes should be paid. For example, the Selected Proceedings, which can be found at law.scu.edu/sportslaw/, include articles in favor of paying college athletes* and arguments against.† There was also, however, one suggestion of a new way to look at this issue. That came in the lunchtime remarks of David Drummond, a senior vice-president at Google and a former varsity football player at Santa Clara University. His remarks, which are available at the link in the paragraph above, suggested that similar issues have been successfully addressed by universities that license technology created by students. His own company, Google, started with such licenses from Stanford University's Office of Technology Licensing, licenses for which student inventors received payment.

His remarks recounted the initial criticisms of payment of students for university technology transfer, primarily how payment was, or easily could become, inconsistent with a university's academic mission. He also recounted how these criticisms have been overcome in a way consistent with the academic mission. That consistency was facilitated by a paper, Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology, issued in 2007 by eleven distinguished institutions: California Institute of Technology; Cornell University; Harvard University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stanford University; University of Illinois, Chicago; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; University of Washington; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Yale University; and Association of American Medical Colleges ( otl.stanford.edu/documents/whitepaper-10.pdf). Since 2007, over 90 additional institutions have adopted the Nine Points. Most of these are universities or colleges that are also members of the NCAA.

* "National Letter of Indenture: How College Athletes are similar to, and in many ways worse off than, the indentured servants of colonial times," by Andy Schwarz and Jason Belzer; "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport," by Ramogi Huma and Ellen Staurowsky. † "Amateurism, Professionalism, Commercial Creativity and Intercollegiate Athletics: Ambivalence about Principles," by Wallace Renfro; "Don't Allow Pay-for-Play to Fool You," by Linda Robertson.

The Nine Points approach seemed worth following up, particularly because of ISLE's location in Silicon Valley, where much technology licensing occurs. Also, as with technology transfer, criticism of payment of college athletes focuses on the alleged inconsistency of such payment with a university's academic mission.

Therefore, ISLE's Chairman (Ron Katz, a sports and intellectual property lawyer who works in the technology licensing field), Vice-Chairman (Issac Vaughn, a technology lawyer and former varsity college quarterback) and Executive Director (Mike Gilleran, who was Commissioner of the West Coast Conference for 24 years) decided to co-author a follow-up to David Drummond's paper in the format of the Nine Points. That paper, Nine Points to Consider Regarding the Payment of College Athletes, is attached. Like the predecessor Nine Points regarding technology licensing, some of the authors of which were interviewed for the new Nine Points, the authors hope that, along with the other materials about the pros and cons of paying college athletes, the new Nine Points will stimulate further discussion on this issue.

Comments and questions should be directed to Mike Gilleran at mgilleran@scu.edu. They will be posted on the ISLE blog, law.scu.edu/sportslaw.

NINE POINTS TO CONSIDER REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES

By Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn, and Mike Gilleran
1. The concept of amateurism can and should be re-assessed so that it does not become obsolete in light of changed circumstances, such as the amount of money generated by some college sports and the level of commitment many of today's student-athletes must make in order to succeed.
President Teddy Roosevelt formed the NCAA in 1906 in order to implement needed safety measures in the sport of college football. At that time, it was impermissible to recruit individuals on the basis of athletic ability, much less to offer athletic scholarships. The athletic scholarship was introduced in the 1950s, when an institution's revenue in athletics was based primarily on ticket sales to home games.

In contrast, today's lucrative television contracts have become the driving revenue force behind an institution's ability to thrive in college athletics. Recently, for example, numerous universities have changed their athletic conference affiliation for well-publicized financial reasons.

It is interesting to compare, on the one hand, the NCAA of Teddy Roosevelt's time and the not dissimilar NCAA of the 1950s with, on the other hand, the NCAA 100 years after its formation. In that 100th year, 2006, NCAA President Myles Brand addressed the delegates at the NCAA Convention and noted that although the participants in college athletics should remain amateurs, the enterprise itself clearly is commercial in nature: "'Amateur' defines the participants," Brand said, "not the enterprise." ¹

Since the 1950's, the NCAA has utilized the term "student-athlete," a term that long-time NCAA President Walter Byers created, as he has explained, to avoid "... the dreaded notion that NCAA athletes could be indentified as employees by state industrial commissions and the courts." ² Identification as employees would, of course, give NCAA athletes rights such as workers' compensation, unionization and wages.

Athletic scholarships, however, have represented a form of pay-for-play that has avoided unionization, workers' compensation and wages for college athletes. Although this scholarshiponly situation may have made sense in the 1950s, when college athletics generated relatively little revenue and required much less effort from athletes than is required today, it makes sense to re-examine this subject in light of the significant revenues generated today and the year-round efforts currently required of athletes. As the New York Times recently stated about workers' compensation for college athletes, the nationally televised, dramatic injury of Kevin Ware, a University of Louisville basketball player, has "...inflamed the debate about the treatment and care of unpaid college athletes who help generate hundreds of millions of dollars for their universities" ³

The limits to what an athlete could receive for participation in college sports were appropriate in 1906 and arguably through 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, ⁴ but those limits raise issues today for many institutions. The institutions reaping significant television revenue and BCS (Bowl Championship Series) revenue could now devise a process of compensation to their athletes that comports with traditional American notions of fairness in the marketplace, just as they have adjusted to comply with the gender equity provisions of Title IX, which was implemented in 1972. ⁵ The process of complying with Title IX has occurred despite the fact that it presented a financial challenge for many institutions, particularly those without significant television revenue streams.

In the 1984 Board of Regents case referenced above, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the NCAA could no longer limit telecasts of college sporting events. There was little television revenue for institutions and conferences prior to the court taking control of football television from the NCAA in 1984. However, once the NCAA could no longer limit its members from maximizing their television revenues, those revenues increased exponentially and changed the landscape of college sports.

Justice Byron White, who was a college football All-American, dissented in the Board of Regents case and warned of problems from vastly increased revenues flowing to college sports as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA could no longer limit football TV revenues:

By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education, the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere. ⁶

The unbridled competition to which Justice White referred has now come to pass, bringing with it numerous scandals like those at Penn State and the University of Miami.

The concept of amateurism at American universities that started with the creation of the NCAA in 1906 was based on the model used by elite English universities, i.e., participation in amateur athletics was limited to those who could afford it, the upper class. Money was therefore foreign to amateur athletics at first. That was appropriate because, among other reasons, athletics consumed little of the athletes' time, unlike today when college athletes must train year around.

Now, however, that billions of dollars are flowing to amateur athletics, a more basic American tradition is appropriate to consider: one who creates value should share proportionally in that value. Some athletes in some sports produce a great deal of revenue for their college or university, and it is appropriate to examine potential models that would allow those athletes to reap the benefits of the substantial value they create.
2. There is a consensus that some college sports (football and men's basketball) are businesses generating hundreds of millions of dollars for a few dozen schools, primarily from television contracts.
As noted earlier, the new world of football television was ushered in by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1984 Board of Regents case. When the NCAA controlled football television rights, it received annual rights fees that were very low as a result of the NCAA policy limiting telecasts to a few per week. Now that institutions and conferences control their football television rights, the payments have risen by several orders of magnitude. However, the participants who, in large part, generate this significantly enhanced revenue (the student-athletes)have not participated in this extremely rapid growth of rights fees.

The combination of football and basketball television rights fees for the Big Six conferences as of May 2012 is as follows: ⁷

Pac 12 Conference: $3 billion, 12-year deal with ESPN and Fox. The Pac 12 also has started its own cable network. Big 12 Conference: Combined $2.5 billion, 13-year deal with Fox and ESPN/ABC. Also, the Big 12 has a $78 million, four-year deal with FSN. Atlantic Coast Conference: $3.6 billion, 15-year deal with ESPN/ABC. Southeastern Conference: $2.25 billion, 15-year deal with ESPN/ABC, and $825 million, 15-year deal with CBS College Sports. Big Ten Conference: $1 billion, 10-year deal with ESPN/ABC, and a $72 million, six-year deal with CBS for basketball only. Also, the Big Ten Network has a $2.8 million, 25-year deal with News Corp. Big East Conference: $200 million, six-year deal with ESPN/ABC.

The NCAA basketball tournament generated $9 million per year in 1981, $215 million per year in 1997 and generates approximately $750 million per year now. ⁸ Although this financial picture is far different from what it was in the early 20th century, the athletes who now generate this substantial revenue are still unpaid or, if one considers scholarships as pay, underpaid in proportion to what they generate. In professional football and basketball, for example, players re paid approximately one-half of the revenues generated.
3. There is also a consensus that there are many athletic programs other than those mentioned above that are not businesses.
For example, women's sports are similar to all men's sports (except football and basketball) in that they generally do not generate a profit for their institutions. There is therefore no direct market reward in which the athletes could participate. The old/current model of amateurism probably makes sense in these cases, with one exception: any new model of amateurism must comply with Title IX.

Therefore, whatever monies are directed to men's sports must be directed equally to women's sports. If, for example, football and men's basketball generated $1,000,000 that should go to athletes, one-half of that would have to go to female athletes in a way that complies with Title IX.
4. It is important to recognize the distinctions between Points 2 and 3 above so that business norms can be observed in the context of Point 2.
The time for a one-size-fits-all approach appears to have passed. In earlier times, for example, it would have been unheard of that a university's head football coach was the highest paid state employee, surpassing substantially what is paid to the president of his university or the governor of his state. Now, however, that situation is not rare. USA Today has reported that the average annual salary for head football coaches at FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) schools is $1.64 million. ⁹ According to a recent book:

Between 1985-1986 and 2009-2010 at 44 universities in one of the five major conferences, average compensation expressed in 2009-2010 dollars increased for full professors from $107,400 to $141,600, for presidents from $294,400 to $559,700, and for head football coaches from $273,300 to $2,054,700. ¹⁰

For example, Alabama head football coach Nick Saban's contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only an NCAA scholarship that does not even cover their basic living expenses. ¹¹

The situation is similar for men's basketball. USA Today reported that the average salary for head coaches in the NCAA Division I Basketball Tournament is $1.47 million. ¹²

There is acceptance that market forces have shaped the current reality for seven-figure coaching salaries. As will be discussed below, it has also been accepted that student inventors (like the founders of Google, who were Stanford students when they came up with the ideas that created Google), should be compensated by their universities for student inventions that generate revenue. Is, however, there any meaningful distinction between student inventors and student athletes?
5. Business norms include compensating contributors in a way that is rationally related to their contribution.
Successful coaches and administrators reap the benefits of the marketplace, as is customary and appropriate in a capitalist system. Regarding student inventors, as will be discussed below, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 ¹³ requires that they receive a share of royalties from their inventions. It is not illogical to suggest that inventors, who are college students, and athletes, who are college students, should be treated the same, i.e., each should share in the value they create for their institutions without being penalized. Stanford, for example, paid, not penalized, the founders of Google for their inventions while they were students. Why should a student-athlete be penalized if he or she is paid for his or her contributions?
6. Business norms include insuring contributors from injuries that may last beyond their college careers.
Such insurance is simply a recognition that an individual who suffers an injury while working to benefit the institution should not suffer economically as a result of that injury. In this regard, California recently implemented the Student-Athlete Bill of Rights, ¹⁴ which includes expanded rights to insurance coverage. The New York Times recently quoted a Northwestern University Business School professor as follows on workers' compensation for student-athletes:

American labor law created decades ago established that workers exposed to injuries in the normal course of their jobs should not be expected to pay because of those injuries. The NCAA is 100 years behind the rest of the country. ¹⁵
7. Compensation for athletes is no different in principle from compensating computer science students in accord with their financial contributions to their department and to their school.
The fact that computer science students receive compensation under carefully considered programs makes them no less students and no less in accord with their school's academic mission. Indeed, they enhance that mission, ¹⁶ and, as noted above, U.S. law (the Bayh-Dole Act; see fn. 13) requires student inventors to be compensated.

Just as the academic missions of colleges and universities have not been compromised by the efforts of students who were compensated for inventing, it is arguable that institutions' academic missions would not be compromised by permitting athletes to participate in market benefits. David Drummond, Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, was a varsity football player in college and is very familiar with university technology transfer programs. He has noted that "...while architects and managers of technology transfer recognize that they run a business that must be balanced with the American social, economic and academic norms, the folks who run big time college sports have chosen to operate outside those norms under the increasingly bizarre banner of amateurism." ¹⁷
8. For college sports that are not multi-million dollar businesses, different norms should apply, perhaps similar to those that existed before certain college sports became multimillion dollar businesses.
There are clearly different market forces acting differently on different sports. Therefore, the cookie-cutter approach that was implemented by the NCAA decades ago may now serve as a model for only some, but not all, sports.

The amateur sports world that early twentieth-century fictional icon Frank Merriwell of Yale dominated has little in common with contemporary football and men's basketball. That bygone world, however, is not unlike other sports, in which it can be said that the coaches and participants are primarily motivated by love of the sport with no expectation of substantial market rewards. In the absence of significant market forces such as those in football and men's basketball, the traditional model of NCAA amateurism seems to work well.

It used to be the case that NCAA schools could choose to be in Division I for some sports and in Division II for others. This practice appears to make eminently good sense. The result of the rule change requiring schools to choose one Division for all their sports resulted in a number of schools dropping football.
9. Colleges should be able to choose on a sport-by-sport basis whether they opt for the business model or not.
Of course, some will argue that an institution that decides not to participate in a market-driven model will not be able to recruit successfully against an institution that agrees to participate in a market-driven model. Recruiting advantages, however, have always existed, and will continue to exist, no matter what model is utilized. The fact of the matter is that many Division I schools arenot now, nor will they ever likely be, competitive with the few dozen schools that generate significant revenue from football and men's basketball. Perhaps these few dozen schools should operate in a Division of their own. Indeed, in football the BCS already is, in effect, such a Division.

307935876.1

1 http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2006/Associationwide/brand%2Bcharts%2Bcourse%2Bfor%2Bcollegiate%2Bmodel_s%2Bnext%2Bcentury%2B-%2B1-16-06%2Bncaa%2Bnews.html

2 Byers, Walter Unsportsmanlike Conduct; Exploiting College Athletes, p. 69 (University of Michigan: 1995).

3 New York Times, "In a Moment, It Can All Be Gone," April 5, 2013, p. B11.

4 468 U.S. 85 (1984).

5 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688.

6 468 U.S. at 122.

7 See Richard T. Karcher, "Broadcast Rights, Unjust Enrichment, and the Student-Athlete," 34 Cardozo Law Review 107 at p.142.

8 Paul C. Weiler, Gary R. Roberts, Roger I. Abrams, and Stephen F. Ross, Sports and The Law, pp. 888-889 (West Publishing Co.: 2011).

9 USA Today, "Special Report: NCAA Football Coaches' Compensation," November 20, 2012, p. A1.7

10 Clotfelter, Charles T., Big-Time Sports in American Universities, p. 266 (Cambridge University Press: 2011).

11 The California Assembly is considering a bill (AB 475) that would require certain universities to cover all the costs of athletes attending their institution.

12 USA Today, "USA Today Special Report: Coaches' Compensation," April 4, 2013, p. A1.

13 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(7)(B).

14 California Education Code, Section 67450 et seq.

15 New York Times, "In a Moment, It Can All Be Gone," April 5, 2013, p. B15, quoting David Dranove.

16 See "In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology,"issued March 6, 2007, by California Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of California, University of Illinois, Chicago, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, University of Washington, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Yale University, and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Since 2007, over ninety other institutions of higher learning have endorsed this document, which can be found at http://otl.stanford.edu/documents/whitepaper-10.pdf.

17 See http://law.scu.edu/sportslaw/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? - Santa Clara Law -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Discussion Forum Institute of Sports Law and Ethics, Santa Clara University by Mike Gilleran, Ron Katz and Issac Vaughn Preface The Institute of Sports Law and Ethics (ISLE) has a strong focus on the ethical aspects of sports. In... Read more ›