The NCAA's statement yesterday on allowing college athletes to begin profiting off their name, image and likeness, on the surface, was a "major turnabout" by the organization, but exactly how athletes will benefit from the decision is "still to be determined," according to J. Brady McCollough of the L.A. TIMES. The NCAA saying that it is "open to reform on the issue is significant." But McCollough asked, "Could any change the NCAA chooses to embrace be meaningful to college athletes, particularly the ones in football and men's basketball who help to bring in millions of dollars each year? What new benefit could the NCAA be permitting ... that aligns with these guidelines?" (L.A. TIMES, 10/30). USA TODAY's Dan Wolken writes the NCAA "understands the need to evolve," but they are "not going to blow up their model so that a blue-chip quarterback recruit who might want to play for Alabama closes the deal by getting $200,000 to endorse a booster's local business." The NCAA is going to "try to thread a really small needle: Allow college athletes to make money based on their inherent popularity while preventing a free-for-all where recruiting is done by the highest bidder" (USA TODAY, 10/30). The NCAA's statement accomplished one goal of getting on the right side of history by allowing athletes to benefit from their NIL. Ultimately, it marks the first phase of a long journey for both the athletes and the NCAA (Michael Smith, SBJ Media).
DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS: THE ATHLETIC's Dana O'Neil wrote a "closer look at the wording" of the NCAA's statement "reveals a rather vague, but critical caveat." The NCAA wants any NIL profits to remain "consistent with the collegiate model." There is "no obvious answer to exactly what that means, and there won't be for some time." In what "frequently happens with NCAA decision-making, we are left with more questions than answers" (THEATHLETIC.com, 10/29). CBSSPORTS.com's Dennis Dodd wrote the "future rule adjustment appears to be the biggest legislative sea change for the NCAA since it lost control of football television" in the '84 Supreme Court case. However, yesterday's announcement came "without providing direct answers or rule adjustments" (CBSSPORTS.com, 10/29). In San Jose, Jon Wilner writes, "A starting gun was fired on an issue of momentous consequence for college sports, and ... Nothing else." It is unknown "where the process will end, how long it will last, who will be involved or what the rules-of-engagement will be" (San Jose MERCURY NEWS, 10/30). ESPN's Pablo Torre said this is the NCAA "dragging their feet in the right direction" ("High Noon," ESPN2, 10/29). In Austin, Brian Davis writes the NCAA "blinked" with its decision, but what this all means at the "granular level is still unclear" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 10/30).
TIME FOR CHANGE: In Minneapolis, Jim Souhan writes this news "feels like progress because the NCAA has made so little before," but it "doesn't go far enough, and it won't go far enough unless the NCAA is threatened with extinction" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 10/30). ESPN's Michael Wilbon said the NCAA's decision is "too late (because) everybody hates the NCAA." Wilbon: "People within the college basketball and football industry hate the NCAA, and there a lot of powerful people that want them out. They're not going to be the governing body forever ... (and) once this is adopted, this sort of play for some pay, it's time for the NCAA to go" ("PTI," ESPN, 10/29).
JUST SAVING FACE? In DC, Sally Jenkins writes the NCAA's statement is "nothing more than an attempt to slow the landslide, one that will bury the current leaders to the point of extinction." Within the NCAA's verbiage are some "key phrases that show just how desperate its leaders are to delay, and to hang on to its ravening economic system" (WASHINGTON POST, 10/30). YAHOO SPORTS' Pete Thamel wrote a "significant philosophical shift" has occurred to "potentially cut athletes a slice of the pie." But "wade through all the NCAA's jargon, and there's more self-congratulatory condiments than actual meat" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 10/29). In Atlanta, Michael Cunningham writes, "I'm all for ending the NCAA's exploitative 'amateur' model, but this development won't do anything to hasten its demise." The potential changes are "meant to insulate the NCAA from the growing public, political and legal pressure while maintaining the status quo" (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 10/30).
NOWHERE TO HIDE: In Honolulu, Ferd Lewis writes the NCAA has "finally acknowledged it is holding a losing hand." It has come to "realize what many have long known, namely that it is out-numbered, on shaky ground and sorely behind the times" (HONOLULU STAR-ADVERTISER, 10/30). CNBC's Kelly Evans said, "This is a huge u-turn. I can't imagine the ramifications" ("The Exchange," CNBC, 10/29). In S.F., Al Saracevic writes it is a "stunning capitulation that could change the rules of the game for college athletes across the country." The NCAA's governors "realize they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending the organization's archaic system" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 10/30). In Columbus, Rob Oller writes the NCAA "continued to modernize" with its announcement, which is "another positive step toward the organization joining the 21st century." But "regardless of where this ultimately leads, the decades-old amateur model, which already slouches toward professionalism, is in for huge challenges" (COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 10/30). A N.Y. DAILY NEWS editorial states it opposes salaries for college athletes, but giving them "freedom to profit on the side ... makes sense" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 10/30).
