The NCAA, its member institutions, and conferences chose the later. California Governor, Gavin Newsom, unleashed the final gust with a stroke of his pen, singing SB 206 (the full text of which can be found here):

What the Bill Actually Does

Before I really get rolling on this, a couple of things about this bill. First, you aren’t going to see California student-athletes immediately in commercials and raking in the cash. The bill doesn’t take full effect until January 1, 2023, and that’s assuming the NCAA doesn’t make good on their threats and get the bill deem unconstitutional as they’ve previously threatened.

Second, the bill doesn’t really do anything to the NCAA and its bylaws. It’s simply deemed that enforcement of bylaws that forbid student-athletes from making money off their name, image, and likeness or obtaining professional representation (which must be licensed) that would strip them of eligibility or their scholarship would be illegal in California.

Everyone else can still be paid under-the-table as normal.

The Reactions

With that out of the way, let’s take a look at some very reasonable reactions that happened after this news broke:

I find it rather hilarious that the NCAA starts of this statement saying they agree that more changes are needed and lamenting that they didn’t get the opportunity to make the changes themselves. If only they had the power to do something about this for years or maybe decades.

However, the NCAA’s reaction to the singing of SB 206 pales in comparison to Barry Alvarez, athletic director of Wisconsin, who boldly proclaimed he won’t schedule teams from California because of the new law. I’m sure this wasn’t a “LOOK AT ME” statement at all. After all, Wisconsin last scheduled a California school back in *checks notes* 2010 against uh *checks notes again* San Jose State back when the WAC still existed.

I’d wonder if they would turn down a future Rose Bowl bid if they were to face a California school, but considering that they failed to put up any kind of offense against Northwestern, that’ll probably take care of itself.

But I’m sure no one else from the Big Ten had really bad thoughts about this.

Scott Frost coaches at a school in group of conferences called the “Power Five” which exists to make sure the competitive imbalance forever exists in football. Frost would know better than anyone because he used to coach at UCF where, despite doing nothing but winning, could never crack the glass ceiling to get into the playoffs because they didn’t belong.

Finally, Frost just got his doors beat off by Ohio State 48-7. You would think that would cement his expertise on competitive imbalance, but I guess this bill is what would actually destroy things. Sure.

But folks from the Big Ten weren’t he only ones chiming in, let’s see what the conference of exposed bag-men has to say:

Greg Sankey realizes that SB Nation piece exists right? Ole Miss is just two years removed from having a laundry list of “abuse by external influences”, but a bill dedicated to moving everything out of the shadows and above-board is somehow bad? Sure. Makes sense.

But perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, these are reactions from the outside looking in. Perhaps they see a new competitive disadvantage and lashing out. Surely the Pac-12 will have a much more level-headed reaction:

Or not.

I’m going to let Brian Floyd of Banner Society sum up how dumb this is:

Friendly reminder about the Pac-12 media network: they want to be the only conference that owns their own networks. They’ve not only dumped millions upon millions into this effort, but were seeking $750 million in private investments to keep their network dreams alive. I’m thinking education investment might not be their primary goal. Just a guess.

It’s About Damned Time

Back in 2014, I also wrote a piece about how the constant neglect of the academic side of college athletics led to this point. I absolutely stand behind every word of that piece. It’s abundantly clear that nothing has really changed in the past five years, continuously devaluing the value of academic scholarships.

Even more infuriating was something that that Jack Swabrick pointed out in 2014. Not only did he come out in favor of student-athletes being allowed to profit of their name, image, and likeness, he noted the absurdity of the higher standard that student-athletes are held to in comparison to the rest of the student body.

For example, a music major could create a YouTube series of their performances and monetize their original compositions. They are allowed to take one of, if not their primary, talent and profit off of it. Should, say a football player create a similar YouTube series, but the focus is on his skills in football, he could find himself ineligible and lose his scholarship.

By the way, the later example actually happened.

Yet despite Swarbrick’s endorsement of the idea, nothing happened at ND or anywhere else. In the meantime, revenues continued to rise, but student-athlete compensation changes remain stagnant.

The arguments against student-athletes not being able to cash in on, well, themselves, simply don’t hold any water. Coaches and fans will lament that any money coming into the equation will ruin what makes college sports special, but the Olympics have proven that amateurism and some level of professionalism can mix just fine, even when the pros win.

If I hear Ian Book singing “Beep, beep, it’s Gurley Leep” tomorrow, it’s not going to kill my pride or enjoyment of Notre Dame football. Quite frankly, I’m not even going to see him as a professional athlete; in fact, I’d say he’s following the tradition of Notre Dame quite well.

The other concern is that boosters will create bidding wars for recruits–you know, a thing that’s totally not happening anywhere at all right now. Not only could this easily be managed with caps at some level, I think we’d all be pleasantly surprised by how well things will work out by bringing all these things above board.

One of my lasting memories at Notre Dame was seeing my 65% scholarship tax statement at the end of my senior year. After calculating the hours that I worked, I discovered, much to my surprise, my part-time webmaster job was infinitely more profitable. Don’t get me wrong, I’d do it all again in a heartbeat, but wooooo boy did I have a poor concept of how much I was being compensated in relation to the time I was putting in (and the suffering that my GPA took as a result).

I say that only because far too often opponents of student-athlete compensation fail to acknowledge how much kids can get suckered when it comes to finances. Some booster handing off a few grand in cash looks like the biggest payday ever to a young kid. Bring that same payment above board, and that same kid can now be advised, by either a licensed agent or even potentially a university employee, that the payment is far below their fair market value (or even fair in relative to a NCAA-imposed cap). And, if they find a deal that compensates them fairly, they can receive professional advice on how to properly handle such cash.

The way things stand today, at best a kid gets to take some booster money and better their/their family’s lives just a little bit. At worst, that payout could cost them everything. The risk to the booster? Nothing beyond being a persona non grata at the school they cheer for. Basically, they’ll be fine.

If the NCAA is really interested in leveling the playing field, let’s treat every student-athlete just as we would any other student. If we continue to keep everything in shadows, the shadows will continue to win.

The post In Their Own Image – SB 206 Signed, First Domino Falls appeared first on Her Loyal Sons.

The most recent rendition of the debate happened on the HBO show “Last Week Tonight” hosted by John Oliver. If you’ve never seen the show, it borrows some of the feel of Oliver’s former employer “The Daily Show” but with a decidedly more acerbic sense of humor. Also, because it’s on HBO, Oliver’s free to drop an F-bomb, and he does…multiple times an episode. I was very tempted to give this piece a more (ahem) colorful title in his honor.

The other major difference from “The Daily Show” is that Oliver eschews guests in order to do long-form narratives on whatever topic strikes him (or his writers) in a given week. The result is a frequently deeper, more thoroughly researched, and sharper take than other shows but still presented with a healthy dose of humor and wit. On Sunday, March 15, 2015, Oliver set his sights on the NCAA. And away we go….[Author’s note: This runs about 21 minutes. It’s a good watch but contains considerable language. If that’s an issue for your work, then slap on a NSFW below].

Here’s our piece on the NCAA from last night #soybeanwind https://t.co/1Fd7IjG06g

— John Oliver (@iamjohnoliver) March 16, 2015

While I wouldn’t call any of Oliver’s takes ground breaking, he did manage to hit most of the sound bite points surrounding the payment and treatment of college athletes. Among those points:

1. A lot of people make a lot money on college sports.
2. That doesn’t include the athletes.
3. Athletes face rigorous schedules and are subjected to abuse and grind that gets under reported.
4. The NCAA has crazy rules and punishments for unintentional violations.
5. Schools will toss kids aside the moment they’re not useful to the team.
6. Many businesses exploit a player’s name, likeness, or number to sell merchandise.
7. The athlete sees none of this money either.
8. Coaches are paid like kings in a disproportionate way.
9. The notion that college sports have amateur integrity is a lie.
10. Bill Simmons is a stooge….Okay, this last point wasn’t actually made, but they did show him in a video clip with Jalen Rose where he nodded along to whatever Jalen said like the bro Simmons loves to be.

The problem with the pay the players debate is that both sides have turned the discussion into a cartoon. Too much of the time one side is chasing the other around with three sticks of dynamite that say “Acme” and a faulty fuse that results in the whole thing blowing up in their face. Rather than attempt to reasonably discuss the situation of current student-athletes (I am not making a value judgment here by use of that term), each side would prefer to bludgeon the other with an over-sized mallet.

I know what you’re thinking: <sarcasm font> “Whoa, Moons! People acting irrationally about a debate. Imagine that.” </end sarcasm font> And yeah, I understand that when people speak passionately, they tend to get more extreme. However, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about paying student-athletes, here are 4 recommendations from me to you:

1. STOP BEING ECONOMIC TRUTHERS

This is by far my greatest pet peeve with this entire debate, and both sides are guilty.

To the “pay the players” crowd: Stop saying that the players don’t receive any compensation. It’s a bad, terrible argument. Oliver used it in passing and then buttressed it to the “college degrees have no value” argument, and it’s just a terrible way to go. Did I mention yet that this is both bad and terrible? A college tuition absolutely is a form of compensation. In fact, for all you pay the players folks out there who were pretty excited about the ruling which would permit Northwestern athletes to potentially unionize: The court’s ruling explicitly relies upon a finding that college tuition is real, tangible form of compensation to reach its decision. Whether you like it or not, in America, you can only be deemed an employee if you’re compensated for your work. Tuition was legally found to be a form of compensation. Any of the tens of millions of people who make student loan payments monthly will also talk to you about the real monetary value that an athletic scholarship has in terms of  future dollars.

You want to talk about whether it’s fair compensation, okay….but don’t deny that the student-athlete receives compensation in the form of a scholarship. It makes you sound dumb and obstinate. Oddly, it’s a favored argument of too many members of the public forum intelligentsia who think if they say it enough, some people just might buy it. If the NCAA’s stupid for thinking that using the words “student-athlete” makes it impossible for them to be employees, then the “pay the players” intelligentsia are equally dumb for thinking if they just keep denying that a scholarship is a form of economic compensation that will be true.

To the “they’re amateurs, don’t pay the players” crowd: Stop arguing that a college scholarship is asbolutely the same thing as real money. It can be assuming that a person’s choices would not change, but it’s not a 1:1 analogy. Stop pretending that a free college education is always a reward in and of itself. Recognize that at least some of these individuals, through legal gerrymandering and collusion between the NCAA and professional sports leagues, have had an artificial barrier to entry erected in their economic craft forcing them to accept a scholarship to college or nothing at all. Appreciate, whether you like it or not, that they have a highly marketable, rare skill whose value is being suppressed. Finally, while it is the exception more than the rule, acknowledge that there are players whose play adds far more economic value to their school than the cost of attendance. It’s not always a fair trade off, and the system is extremely stacked against the unique individual making exploitation all the easier.

2. BE CAREFUL WITH THOSE ANALOGIES

Again, both sides have this issue. Heck, most of us have this issue. Analogies are a favored way in debate to make a rhetorical point, but they are dangerous. It’d probably be best to use them sparsely if at all because this NCAA debate is a unique beast forged through decades of weird and shifting alliances. However, just a few reminders if you’re someone who must try to analogize:

• Yes, there are other professions with barriers to entry even if a person seems qualified. In most states, you can’t practice law, be a doctor, or serve as a CPA without going to, completing, and passing not only educational requirements but also licensing requirements. There are many, may regulated professions. Any analogy that starts off with “In no other realm can a (person) be forced to do _______________ “ is likely false. Avoid it at all costs. No, don’t try to tell me why your analogy here works. Just let it go. Your point might otherwise be alright, but it’s not by suggesting no other person has ever been confronted with a barrier to entry.
• Re-read point 1. Your wage/compensation analogies are probably too extreme. Student-athletes are not slaves. They do not live in third world conditions. These are not appropriate to say.
• Yes, people daily must do things that are unpleasant or not what they’d like to do. Contracts, implied and explicit exist in many facets of our lives. Student-athletes work very hard. I tend to agree with the point Oliver made through the words of Richard Sherman that many “normal” students would find the rigors of a student-athlete’s schedule difficult. However, let’s keep that within the realm of reasonableness. Banking too heavily on this line of reasoning to justify compensation doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are plenty of people who work far harder than student-athletes and just weren’t genetically gifted enough to have the opportunity to go to college for free. Seriously, leave the hardworking analogies at the door. Don’t’ be so quick to create just two clumps of people who attend college, and definitely don’t be too quick to proclaim the ones attending for free to be the hardest working of all.

3. BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT

There’s a funny thing almost everyone involved in this debate implicitly does without realizing it: They talk about the money that’s brought in and the exploitation, and the glory, and the barriers to entry, without acknowledging we’re really just talking about college football and men’s college basketball. Seriously, there’s a reason no one was suing over EA Sports’ NCAA Field Hockey or Swim and Dive game…they don’t’ exist. It’s just these two sports that bring in all the money and glory that get the “pay the players” people going. Yes, there are exceptions. Occasionally, other programs in other sports turn a profit as well, but this debate exists do to the money made from the television and advertising contracts tied to football and men’s college basketball. To the sides, I say this:

To the “pay the players” crowd: I get that in a pinch you’re willing to concede this point. That, heck, you’d even be on board with for now just paying the football and men’s basketball players. At least it would be a start….But it’s not that simple. There are many laws, both at the state and federal level, that make such a system a virtual impossibility. The concession you’re making is hollow. Public universities would be subject to all sorts of scrutiny for turning students into employees and monetary compensation is the tip of the iceberg of the impact it would have. Also, admit that most sports make no money at all. Admit that when you’re talking about all the money School X or Y is making you really just mean their football and men’s basketball program. Admit that you don’t know jack about the profit/loss statements for any other sport program. To the extent you do happen to know that School Z’s baseball team made a profit in 2013, admit that’s an anecdote and you don’t have any evidence to support the conclusion all baseball teams also turn a profit.

To the “they’re amateurs, don’t pay the players” crowd: Your “they’re amateurs” argument takes a substantial blow when we are talking about football and men’s basketball. Yes, I’ll concede not all programs are created equal. There are some schools where basketball or football aren’t as big, but that’s not really the point and you know it. Stop being obtuse and pretending that college football and men’s basketball are just about the purity of the game. John Oliver got this point right. These sports programs do not sustain themselves just for the love of the game. If every sport always lost money the NCAA would eventually dissolve. There’s a lot of money in play, and it’s okay to admit that.

4. THE NCAA’S A TERRIBLY FLAWED ORGANIZATION, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE

It’s easy to take a swing at the manure filled piñata that is the NCAA. They do and say a lot of dumb things all the time. John Oliver’s piece tangentially raises a lot of those problems. The number of rules that coaches, staffs, and universities are expected to follow and be aware of at all times is nearly laughable. And that’s for people who concern themselves with the rules full time. Now, imagine the disconnect and task that comes with trying to educate players on these rules. The NCAA’s often Draconian enforcement of the rules makes it all the worse. Oliver brings up several examples including Rick Majerus buying a lunch for a student-athlete just before the student flies home for a family funeral or the player who received a discount on a ballroom for his 21^st birthday as having received “impermissible benefits.” There was Shabazz Napier’s comments last year about being hungry. The “is a bagel a meal” debate. The sympathetic story of Silas Nacita and how accepting a place to say while homeless deemed him ineligible.  There’s no shortage of reasons to dislike the NCAA or the people who run it.

While the NCAA has earned much of the distrust many in the public have for its practices and reasoning, the decision on whether to permit payment to players is not an area that the organization has fundamentally screwed up…so far. The history of academic dishonesty and professional players disguised as students was a major reason the NCAA became a full-time professional gig in the 1950’s. It’s a remarkably difficult task the NCAA has. There are 1,281 institutions that belong to the NCAA and nearly a half-million student athletes it develops the rules to oversee. Given that the organization has for so long battled the influence that money has on the integrity to the sports it regulates, it’s no great surprise that they consider the issue of permitting payments with a wary eye. I’m not here to defend the NCAA. If you want to laugh at the notion of the NCAA and use of the word “integrity,” you won’t see me raise a major fuss. However, treating the issue of player payment cautiously is well justified by the history of athletics.

Additionally, Oliver raises some of the middle-tier steps that NCAA should be proactively taking. Guaranteed 4 year scholarships is a major step for the schools in the right direction. Want to prove you’re not holding a 20-year old ransom? How about making sure if he comes to school with good intentions and works hard he won’t find himself abandoned prior to getting that ever valuable college degree? Insuring and assisting players who are injured while participating in college athletics is another important step. However, these issues are distinct from the issue of paying players. Oliver and many may be correct in lumping them together as part and parcel of the same corrupt process, but it need not automatically be so. More importantly, don’t use the ad hominem argument that because the NCAA’s screwed up things like protection for injuries that they’ve also screwed up the issue of player payment.

We will inevitably have to continue discussing this issue as it’s not going away anytime soon. The rules above can help guide a more reasonable and nuanced discussion of what we’re talking about. Avoid hyperbole. It’s totally the worst thing to ever occur in the history of the World to anyone. Give thinking a try, you just might like it. But make that vow to try thinking effective 12:01 AM on March 18. For now, how bout we order a couple of pints and leave this dirty NCAA business to the side?

– Moons

The post Guide to Reasonably Discussing Paying Players appeared first on Her Loyal Sons.

Battle lines drawn, black and white paint applied. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Like clockwork, Northwestern gave a “good job, good effort” pat on the back to their students and passed the buck. The NCAA hung their hat on academic endeavors and, like the Manchurian Candidate going active, the media began doing their usual dance and, in doing so, missed the point completely.

We’ll get back to the union efforts in a second, but first let’s focus on Dan Wetzel. Now, I’m not going to attempt to take him to task, but Dan’s work illustrates a mindset that is important to understand in this debate. In writing about the Northwestern unionization attempt, I came across a passage in his article that set off my own Manchurian Candidate response:

Registering with the labor relation board starts a process. Northwestern must respond to whether it wishes to recognize the union. The school likely will follow NCAA precedent and deny the players are employees at all. Colleges prefer to classify them as “student-athletes.”

…

If Northwestern rejects the union, the local labor board will hold a hearing on the matter, listen to both sides and make a determination on who is correct. In rough terms, the debate is over whether the players really are “student-athletes” or whether they’re employees compensated by scholarships, room, board and other items.

Wetzel’s flippant use of the term student-athlete made my mind go back to a previous piece that he did, regarding rampant violations of NCAA rules in college football:

Amateurism is a bankrupt concept. It was invented by British aristocrats in the mid-1800s as a way to keep working-class athletes from succeeding at their elitist pursuits. Basically, as long as guys who had to labor in factories six days a week were worn out from the work and lacked time to practice, the rich guys who never dealt with such concerns would continue to be superior at sailing or dressage or cricket or whatever. So the bourgeoisie who didn’t need the money declared it noble to play for no pay. How nice of them. Their true reasoning, of course, was to assure the continuation of their favored status on an uneven playing field of competition.

 This detestable idea was later co-opted by the NCAA and the modern Olympic Games (the ancient Greek athletes were actually paid). The public was then repeatedly sold the idea of the innocence of amateurism and sold it well. This conveniently allowed the powerful administrators to control all the revenue produced.

Amateurism is a sham in practice, too, one that simply isn’t being followed or respected, as story after story after story proves. So many of the athletes, players and administrators don’t believe in it. That’s the value of the coverage. It’s made denying the extent of the violations laughable.

The above belief is why Wetzel places student-athlete in quotation marks and pays it no mind. To him, and many others, it’s a joke, a failed concept that is outdated and needs to change.

However, it was never supposed to be like that in the NCAA.

Credit: Notre Dame Student Welfare & Development

The amateurism that the NCAA has espoused wasn’t supposed to be a continuation of the uneven playing field that Wetzel describes. While the British wealthy were likely looking to hold down their more impoverished counterparts, college athletics were meant to empower, not on the field, but off of it through education. The idea was to have the playing field leveled so that all potential student-athletes would have access to an education and not just have it’s member institutions create an arms-race for athletic prowess and the monetary windfall that follows.

That obviously isn’t the case today. Education has taken a back seat and to that point, Wetzel is dead-on that the NCAA’s goals “simply [aren’t] being followed or respected” to any degree by many of its member institutions. However, pointing the finger solely at the NCAA, conferences, and the schools is rather disingenuous. The public at large has bought in to the fact that the education, which in reality is the compensation given to student-athletes, isn’t even close to fair compensation for student-athletes in revenue sports.

This is particularly mind-boggling when you consider that the very same people making such an argument leave college with crippling debt that is now pushing the $30,000 mark and rising annually. Depending on the loan, that $30,000 could easily turn into over $40,000 paid over ten years. And that number likely only holds true if you are paying in-state tuition. Go out-of-state and you are looking at $20,000/year on average at a public university and close to $30,000/year on average if you go for a private school education (source).

However, despite the money and debt headache that scholarship student-athletes are spared, it is worth very little, if anything, should they not graduate or graduate with a worthless degree. While four-year graduation rates are at an all time high of 81%, that number fails to tell the whole story. Just take a look at a team who has over half their starters majoring in “general studies” or some similar major that is an obvious vehicle to keep kids academically eligible. North Carolina basically had athletes attend fake classes and a Florida State teacher detailed how the football culture in Tallahassee rules all.

With these issues, it’s no wonder the public at large sees a student-athlete’s education as worthless compensation and push for some sort of payment, even if it is a modest stipend. However, that’s about as effective as attempting to treat someone with a gunshot wound by informing them that they’re bleeding and sending them on their way home with a bottle of pain killers. Sure the pain is going to be dulled for a while, but it’s all basically a large gamble by not going after the obvious problem.

As much as I loathe David Shaw, he made an excellent point on this very matter:

“I like to say that our job is to teach these guys how to make a living and not have them make a living in college.”

Because, even if you pay these guys, after college is done, then what? How is paying a player for four or five years and abruptly cutting them off any less exploitative than the current model? If the focus never returns to education, a pay for play model is just as morally bankrupt for these kids.

Even worse, the NCAA is largely powerless to actually be the agent for change here (or too inept, take your pick). The power doesn’t lie within the NCAA, it never has. It’s everyone’s favorite whipping boy because they happen to be the one that writes the rules, while the conferences and member institutions who actually hold the power (read: the ever increasing absurdly huge payouts and media contracts) laugh in their collective face. The NCAA can write bylaws until they are blue in the face, but if the universities themselves don’t take care of the student-athletes, the fight is over before it even begins.

And that brings us back to Northwestern.

Even though “pay for play” arguments have been brought up yet again, that isn’t their focus. One of their players even went public on Reddit’s /r/cfb to say as much. Their endgame is to protect the student-athlete both from injury and from having their chance at an education stripped away. After all, these days there is little to stop, say, Alabama from cutting eight players that haven’t yet graduated to make oversigning work this year. And what if one of those eight gets injured in an offseason workout? ‘Bama could take away that scholarship and further cut that player off from receiving the usual medical care the team usually provides and then they have to foot the bill as well as tuition costs.

And yes, this actually happens and as that story shows, it isn’t just limited to the SEC and football.

In short, Northwestern players are attempting to unionize because if schools don’t give a damn and the NCAA is powerless, who is fighting for them? What recourse do they have to try and fight for their own future?

Despite these players best efforts, though, this unionization attempt will likely fail. Even though student-athletes do help bring in money for their schools and take very real risks in their athletic endeavors, I don’t see a court ever considering them employees. However, the impact of this act shouldn’t lie solely on it’s legal fate, it should serve as a wake up call to the NCAA and all of it’s member institutions.

This is a time where I would love to see Notre Dame take a stand and formalize our already standard practice of honoring scholarships until graduation, regardless of injury or athletic performance. A scholarship from Notre Dame ends in four ways: going pro, graduating, transfer, or failing to make the grades. We shouldn’t just be able to look kids in the eye and say this, we should be able to point to the fine print that defines this promise.

Notre Dame isn’t the only school that operates in this fashion, others certainly do as well. Those universities need to make a similar statement. Then it becomes a recruiting tool, places pressure on other schools to do the same, thereby pushing the conferences to follow suit and ultimately pushing the NCAA into action.

Much like the Northwestern union hopes, I’m rather certain there are all kinds of manner of rules, bylaws and regulations that would prevent Jack Swarbrick from standing at a podium in the near future to make such an announcement. However, that shouldn’t stop us. Every football game, we are reminded of what Notre Dame fights for. Each fight detailed in these commercials face incredible challenges as the problems tackled are some of the most difficult that our world has seen. In comparison, any NCAA red tape would seem laughable.

Every Domer knows this is right up Notre Dame’s alley. After all, this is the same school that detailed a massive expansion to the football stadium and made sure to include new classrooms, music halls, and labs in their plans. But us knowing isn’t enough. ND needs to scream it from the rooftops so it’s impossible to ignore.

College athletics are broken and the NCAA seemingly loses power by the minute. Education of student-athletes has become a punch-line and it needs to end. It’s time to fix it and truly fight for the STUDENT-athlete.

The post It’s Time to Fight for the STUDENT-Athlete appeared first on Her Loyal Sons.