<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet href="https://feeds.resonaterecordings.com/feed.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <atom:link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://feeds.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism" title="MP3 Audio" />
        <atom:link rel="hub" href="https://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
                <title>the BigAmateurism monologues</title>
                <generator>Resonate Recordings https://resonaterecordings.com</generator>
        <description>
            <![CDATA[A series of events over the last 18 months—some unforeseeable—have created a perfect storm that will change college sports forever. The NCAA's bait and switch campaign in Congress on name, image, and likeness, a historic case in the US Supreme Court, COVID, race-based social unrest, the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and the ascent of Amy Coney Barrett,) the Georgia special elections, and more have conspired to make this era perhaps the most consequential in the history of American sports. In this perfect storm, nothing is as it appears to the public. The NCAA and powerful conferences have marshaled some of the most powerful corporate, legal, public relations, media, and political forces in the world to wage war against a small group of elite revenue-producing athletes—overwhelmingly African American—who threaten to disrupt the NCAA cartel in the 15 billion-dollar-a-year college sports industry. The NCAA is one bill in Congress and one Supreme Court decision away from achieving the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. If that happens, the athletes whose talents underwrite the entire industry will have no recourse in federal courts to challenge the NCAA's amateurism-based compensation limits and state legislatures will be powerless to pass laws that protect athletes' basic economic liberties. Join former Duke basketball player, attorney, academician, and athletes' rights advocate Richard Ford as he dissects the NCAA's war against revenue-producing athletes and the institutions, interests, decision-makers, and motives behind it.]]>
        </description>
                    <copyright>© 2026 the BigAmateurism monologues Richard Ford</copyright>
                <language>en-us</language>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 03:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 03:08:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
                    <link>https://bigamateurism.com</link>
                

                <itunes:category text="Sports" />
        
                <itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture" />
        
                <itunes:category text="Education" />
        
        <googleplay:author>Richard Ford</googleplay:author>
        <googleplay:image href="https://storage.googleapis.com/com-resonaterecordings-public/cover-art/7lA6EhZ5camnSN4HPOOoOFcm3ISjOXTPj3VLQKN2.jpg" />
        <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>

        <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
        <itunes:author>Richard Ford</itunes:author>
        <itunes:image href="https://storage.googleapis.com/com-resonaterecordings-public/cover-art/7lA6EhZ5camnSN4HPOOoOFcm3ISjOXTPj3VLQKN2.jpg" />
        <itunes:owner>
            <itunes:name>Richard Ford</itunes:name>
            <itunes:email>cagerredux@gmail.com</itunes:email>
        </itunes:owner>
        <itunes:complete>No</itunes:complete>
        <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>

        
                <item>
            <title>The Federal NIL Police</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Federal NIL Police</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>An element of the NCAA’s and Power 5’s quest for preemption is the claimed need for a national enforcement entity. In 2019 and through 2020, the NCAA argued that it—and it alone— should serve that ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">0e59057d-df70-493f-a936-af3235cf0767</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/0e59057d-df70-493f-a936-af3235cf0767</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[An element of the NCAA’s and Power 5’s quest for preemption is the claimed need for a national enforcement entity. In 2019 and through 2020, the NCAA argued that it—and it alone— should serve that role if Congress federalizes the NIL market. Now, with the NCAA’s diminishing relevance as a national regulator, NCAA and Power 5 lawyers, lobbyists, and advocates like Linda Livingstone call for a “truly independent” federal enforcement entity. This vague, appealing characterization is yet another NCAA/Power 5 smokescreen. This episode analyzes the legislative proposals Big 12 lobbyists are promoting in Congress behind closed doors and the structure of the “independent” entities responsible for regulation and enforcement in a federalized NIL marketplace.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/0e59057d-df70-493f-a936-af3235cf0767.mp3"
                length="59221993"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3701</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Herbstreit and Howard Flap Suggests Growing Values Dissonance for ESPN and Power 5</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Herbstreit and Howard Flap Suggests Growing Values Dissonance for ESPN and Power 5</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On New Year’s Day, ESPN analysts Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard went old school to criticize NFL-caliber football players who opted out of increasingly less consequential bowl games to avoid ca...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">46e95ba3-9af8-47ad-9e0f-95837605a732</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/46e95ba3-9af8-47ad-9e0f-95837605a732</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On New Year’s Day, ESPN analysts Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard went old school to criticize NFL-caliber football players who opted out of increasingly less consequential bowl games to avoid career-altering (or ending) injuries. Herbstreit questioned these players’ love for the game, and Howard described them as entitled. Facing immediate blowback online (and presumably after consulting with ESPN higher-ups), Herbstreit issued a “clarification” that was essentially a poorly disguised double down. This episode discusses why Herbstreit’s and Howard’s comments reveal a growing values-based imaging and messaging problem for both ESPN and the Power 5.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/46e95ba3-9af8-47ad-9e0f-95837605a732.mp3"
                length="52738608"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3296</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Saban Schools Fisher While Lobbying for Protective Federal Legislation</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Saban Schools Fisher While Lobbying for Protective Federal Legislation</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Nick Saban’s comments on the state of college sports regulation will no doubt be remembered more for the reaction they drew from Texas A&amp;M coach Jimbo Fisher than for what they say about the future...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">662c516e-7e51-4c26-b64b-3d0ba7da64f4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/662c516e-7e51-4c26-b64b-3d0ba7da64f4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Nick Saban’s comments on the state of college sports regulation will no doubt be remembered more for the reaction they drew from Texas A&M coach Jimbo Fisher than for what they say about the future of college sports. This was textbook Saban. Grab headlines with provocative claims, then weave in the actual message. Saban’s claims that Texas A&M and Jackson State were “buying” players—and Fisher’s entertaining rant in response—are a sportswriter’s dream. This gift will keep giving until the teams square off in Tuscaloosa in October. But Saban’s comments are worth analyzing for a much different reason. In his portrayal of the chaotic state of college sports regulation, he was a human talking point for tired—and often false—narratives that justify protective federal legislation that would effectively end the athletes’ rights movement. Saban’s megaphone is second to none in college sports. When he speaks, people listen. Saban is a far more potent lobbying force than the army of paid lobbyists working on behalf of the NCAA and the Power 5 conferences, including the SEC. This episode examines Saban’s comments in the context of the NCAA/Power 5 lobbying and public relations war against revenue-producing athletes.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/662c516e-7e51-4c26-b64b-3d0ba7da64f4.mp3"
                length="77388157"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4837</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Did Booker and Blumenthal Hang a U-Turn on Athletes’ Rights?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Did Booker and Blumenthal Hang a U-Turn on Athletes’ Rights?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On July 20th, 2023, Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Jerry Moran (R-KS) released a discussion draft of a bill titled “College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 202...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4814cbb4-7239-4d27-96f3-19cd4c17281b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/4814cbb4-7239-4d27-96f3-19cd4c17281b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On July 20th, 2023, Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Jerry Moran (R-KS) released a discussion draft of a bill titled “College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2023.” The bill is largely a cut-and-paste job from Moran’s 2021 bill, the “Amateur College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2021” and Booker/Blumenthal’s 2020 bill, the “College Athletes Bill of Rights” (rereleased in 2022). The Moran bill gave the NCAA and Power 5 everything they wanted to obtain regulatory supremacy in college sports and, in the process, end the athletes’ rights movement. The Booker/Blumenthal bills were an equal and opposite counterweight to Moran’s bill and others like it introduced by NCAA/Power 5-friendly Republican Senators. Booker and Blumenthal built their legislation around a civil rights philosophy, particularly the financial and educational exploitation of African American Power 5 football and men’s basketball players. On the crucial question of who will sit on the Iron Throne of college sports regulation, Moran and Booker/Blumenthal have been on opposite sides of the earth. Both would use a federal corporation to oversee the college sports issues covered by the legislation. However, Moran would require that NCAA and Power 5 insiders run the federal corporation, replicating the NCAA bureaucracy with the protections and powers of the federal government. Booker and Blumenthal would exclude those decision-makers from involvement with the federal corporation and instead rely on athletes and experts in relevant fields. The new “compromise” bill not only jettisons Booker’s and Blumenthal’s civil rights focus but also adopts Moran’s NCAA/Power 5 governance model for the federal corporation. Perhaps most surprisingly, the new bill would grant the NCAA subpoena power to wreak havoc in its infractions and enforcement operations. This episode analyzes the new bill and what it may mean for Congressional action and perhaps the future of athletes’ rights.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 02:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/4814cbb4-7239-4d27-96f3-19cd4c17281b.mp3"
                length="76381298"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4774</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Power 5’s and NCAA’s Assault on Washington</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Power 5’s and NCAA’s Assault on Washington</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>For the last six weeks, the Power 5, the NCAA, and their lobbyists, lawyers, and corporate allies have engaged in an unprecedented, no holds barred campaign to bend the federal government to the wi...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">86e7a616-433a-41e5-beaa-238fd1842c8d</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/86e7a616-433a-41e5-beaa-238fd1842c8d</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[For the last six weeks, the Power 5, the NCAA, and their lobbyists, lawyers, and corporate allies have engaged in an unprecedented, no holds barred campaign to bend the federal government to the will of the big-time college sports industrial complex. Between May 19th and June 16th, four Power 5/NCAA-friendly bills were proposed or circulated for discussion. On May 23rd, the IRS issued an Advice Memorandum on nonprofit NIL collectives. From June 7th – 9th, Power 5 and NCAA leaders descended on Washington in a show of force to demonstrate their singular commitment to federal legislation that would federalize aspects of the college sports marketplace. The campaign included a symposium dominated by Power 5 and NCAA insiders hosted by the University of Arizona. On June 12th, the NCAA-controlled NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committees (all three Divisions) sent letters to Senate and House members supporting federal legislation the Power 5 and NCAA have sought since 2019. Also on June 12th, the NCAA announced the celebration of its first-ever “College Athlete Day.” Championship teams from all three Divisions attended a White House ceremony celebrating the accomplishments of these teams. In conjunction with “College Athlete Day,” the NCAA honored US Presidents who participated in college sports, from Joe Biden to Woodrow Wilson. This episode analyzes the events of the last six weeks.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/86e7a616-433a-41e5-beaa-238fd1842c8d.mp3"
                length="77752210"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4860</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Understanding the Power 5’s and NCAA’s Congressional Campaign: An Organized Lie is More Powerful Than a Disorganized Truth</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Understanding the Power 5’s and NCAA’s Congressional Campaign: An Organized Lie is More Powerful Than a Disorganized Truth</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On March 29th, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce held a hearing titled “Taking the Buzzer Beater to the Bank: Protecting College Athletes’ NIL...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">da75d177-74d0-49f4-9655-15bc13013101</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/da75d177-74d0-49f4-9655-15bc13013101</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On March 29th, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce held a hearing titled “Taking the Buzzer Beater to the Bank: Protecting College Athletes’ NIL Dealmaking Rights.” During and after the hearing, many in the college sports commentariat seemed confused and surprised by the dissonance between the stated purpose of the hearing—protecting college athletes’ NIL rights—and the avalanche of P5/NCAA talking points directed to protective federal legislation that had little to do with NIL. Observers also noted the apparent lack of expertise among the witnesses on NIL (or anything else), the absence of influential P5/NCAA leaders, and the stunning ignorance of the Subcommittee members on the basics of the college sports business, regulatory, and legal environments. None of this should have come as a surprise to anyone who has carefully followed the P5’s/NCAA’s multi-faceted campaign to end the athletes’ rights movement, which began in earnest in the fall of 2019. Congress—through the most powerful lobbyists in America—is the primary battleground, but the P5/NCAA war spans other fronts, including federal litigation to achieve coveted antitrust immunity, false promises of voluntary rules changes on NIL, and a sophisticated public relations gaslighting machine. The P5/NCAA have used these assets over the last four years to eliminate all threats to their regulatory authority and financial interests. To understand what happened at the hearing on March 29, it is essential to know (1) the history and power of big-time football, (2) Myles Brand’s “collegiate model” as a financial framework for big-time college sports, (3) the external regulatory and financial threats to the P5/NCAA in the 21st century, (4) the timeline of events from March 2019 – present, (5) the changing justifications for protective federal legislation, and (6) the extraordinary motivation of P5/NCAA interests to impose their will on Congress and college sports stakeholders, notably including the athletes whose fundamental American rights are at stake. This episode broadly addresses these issues and lays the foundation for a more detailed analysis of every component of the P5/NCAA campaign to end the athletes’’ rights movement.



**Note: The opening montage runs for approximately five minutes. The clips are from three Congressional hearings: February 11th, 2020, in a subcommittee of Senate Commerce, July 1st, 2020, in Senate Commerce, and March 29th,, 2023, in House Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce. The speakers:

Clip 1: former House member Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) (2/11/2020)
Clip 2: former Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby (2/11/2020)
Clip 3: former NCAA President Mark Emmert (2/11/2020)
Clip 4: Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) (7/1/2020)
Clip 5: Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (7/1/2020)
Clip 6: exchange between Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and University of Baltimore School of Law Professor Dionne Koller (7/1/2020)
Clip 7: Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) (3/29/2023)

I discuss these clips at the end of the episode.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/da75d177-74d0-49f4-9655-15bc13013101.mp3"
                length="91226368"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>5702</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Bilirakis-led House Hearing Makes a Mockery of American Values and Athletes’ Rights</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Bilirakis-led House Hearing Makes a Mockery of American Values and Athletes’ Rights</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>As I predicted in my last episode, today’s hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce was a dog and pony show for P5/NCAA interests staged by the most p...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">11f2c2c0-cb89-4d52-bb8a-2cad6c66fdd7</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/11f2c2c0-cb89-4d52-bb8a-2cad6c66fdd7</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As I predicted in my last episode, today’s hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce was a dog and pony show for P5/NCAA interests staged by the most powerful lobbying interests in American history. Titled “Taking the Buzzer Beater to the Bank: Protecting College Athletes’ NIL Dealmaking Rights,” the hearing had little to do with NIL and everything to do with eliminating revenue-producing athletes’ fundamental rights as Americans. This episode offers my preliminary, present sense thoughts on the hearing.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 04:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/11f2c2c0-cb89-4d52-bb8a-2cad6c66fdd7.mp3"
                length="55667655"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3479</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Curious Case of Fr. Jenkins’ and Mr. Swarbrick’s NYT Op-ed</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Curious Case of Fr. Jenkins’ and Mr. Swarbrick’s NYT Op-ed</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Thursday, March 23, Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins and athletics director Jack Swarbrick published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “College Sports Are a Treasure. Don’t Turn Them in...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">7fffe736-719f-4143-ae54-b63d44c00d0b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/7fffe736-719f-4143-ae54-b63d44c00d0b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Thursday, March 23, Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins and athletics director Jack Swarbrick published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “College Sports Are a Treasure. Don’t Turn Them into Minor Leagues.” Jenkins and Swarbrick invoked education, integrity, gender equity, the “thrill” of March Madness, and God Almighty to set against a “crisis” in college sports borne of (1) “the growing patchwork of contradictory and confusing state laws”; (2) “the specter of crippling lawsuits”; (3) “dubious name, image, and likeness deals through which to funnel money to recruits”; and (4) “misguided attempts to classify student-athletes as [gasp!] employees.” Fr. Jenkins’ and Mr. Swarbrick’s antidote? The elimination of the athletes’ rights movement. The op-ed had an out-of-the-blue feeling—why now?—and elicited a variety of responses. But nothing is random in the Power 5’s and NCAA’s quest to federalize their amateurism-based compensation limits and eligibility rules. The Jenkins-Swarbrick rant was part of a purposeful lobbying campaign timed to align with America’s annual “One Shining Moment” love affair with college basketball and March Madness. The media and sports commentariat missed an important “tell” in the Jenkins-Swarbrick broadside to athletes’ rights: a hearing scheduled for March 29th in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) chairs the subcommittee and is poised to reprise his noxious, racialized narratives from a September 30, 2021, college sports hearing in the same subcommittee. This episode analyzes the origins of the Power 5/NCAA lobbying campaign, its carefully orchestrated and integrated public relations campaign, the role of the media through the lens of the Jenkins-Swarbrick op-ed, and the Power 5’s renewed congressional campaign in the House.


Note: All clips in the opening montage are from a September 30th, 20201 hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce titled "A Level Playing Field: College Athletes' Rights to Their Name, Image, and Likeness." Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)  is the speaker in the final clip.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2023 04:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/7fffe736-719f-4143-ae54-b63d44c00d0b.mp3"
                length="95956829"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>5997</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Reading the Johnson v NCAA Tea Leaves</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Reading the Johnson v NCAA Tea Leaves</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Johnson v NCAA yesterday. In Johnson, Division I athletes seek employee status and benefits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">9c1ce298-8add-443d-b981-d7b20c5cafba</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/9c1ce298-8add-443d-b981-d7b20c5cafba</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Johnson v NCAA yesterday. In Johnson, Division I athletes seek employee status and benefits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA governs hourly workers, minimum wage, and overtime issues. The NCAA contends that athletes cannot, as a matter of law, be employees under the FLSA because they are amateur “student-athletes.” This episode analyzes the oral argument and what it may portend for athletes and broader athletes’ rights issues.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 23:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/9c1ce298-8add-443d-b981-d7b20c5cafba.mp3"
                length="58154511"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3635</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Transformation” Hoax, Part II</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Transformation” Hoax, Part II</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Transformation Committee’s final report and rollout centered on the “New Holistic Model for Student-Athletes.” That newly coined marketing phrase is a smoke screen for athlete “benefits” that a...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">aa176a90-56f5-42d4-83e3-ec9ac8b01cd7</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/aa176a90-56f5-42d4-83e3-ec9ac8b01cd7</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Transformation Committee’s final report and rollout centered on the “New Holistic Model for Student-Athletes.” That newly coined marketing phrase is a smoke screen for athlete “benefits” that are neither new nor materially beneficial. The athlete “benefits” outlined in the report are predicated on the benefit structure of Power 5 Autonomy legislation in 2014. In this episode, I compare the Transformation Committee’s “new” athlete benefit package with Autonomy legislation and a May 23rd, 2020, letter the Power 5 conference commissioners sent to congressional leaders in support of protective federal legislation that would have essentially ended the athletes’ rights movement. I also analyze how the Transformation Committee cleverly weaves into the benefits framework two crucial limitations on providing these “new” benefits.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2023 19:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/aa176a90-56f5-42d4-83e3-ec9ac8b01cd7.mp3"
                length="59020540"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3689</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Transformation” Hoax, Part I</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Transformation” Hoax, Part I</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On January 3rd, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors Transformation Committee (TC) released its final report. Far from providing “transformative” change, the final report is a case study of burea...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f29a2e1d-6704-4767-8de6-eaa68cc1a2df</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f29a2e1d-6704-4767-8de6-eaa68cc1a2df</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On January 3rd, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors Transformation Committee (TC) released its final report. Far from providing “transformative” change, the final report is a case study of bureaucratic misdirection and Power 5 indifference to the needs of athletes. The TC’s high-power spin doctors navigated the Committee’s public misdirection campaign from the very start. Soon after, the NCAA’s and Power 5’s lawyers joined the discussion to frame and control all aspects of the Committee’s work  on “student-athlete benefits and support.” Not to be left out, the invisible hand of the NCAA’s/P5’s silk-stocking lobbyists left its mark through the integration of the NCAA Board of Governors Subcommittee on Congressional Engagement into the work of the TC. In Part I of this series, I discuss the history of the TC and some big-picture issues. In Part II, I will break down the report itself.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 16:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f29a2e1d-6704-4767-8de6-eaa68cc1a2df.mp3"
                length="64241266"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4015</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Top Ten of 2022</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Top Ten of 2022</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Wow. It feels like 20 years ago that college sports stakeholders were talking about a unanimous US Supreme Court decision that required the NCAA and Power 5 conferences to play by the same free com...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">b97ee42b-3574-49bc-8130-203bdca2a0e4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/b97ee42b-3574-49bc-8130-203bdca2a0e4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Wow. It feels like 20 years ago that college sports stakeholders were talking about a unanimous US Supreme Court decision that required the NCAA and Power 5 conferences to play by the same free competition laws as the rest of America. News cycles move so quickly that even “big” stories come and go in a matter of days. Synthesizing and ranking a year’s worth of consequential events is a daunting task, particularly when the most skillful propagandists in America manipulate in real time how the public should view those events. In this episode, I offer my top ten stories of 2022, with a couple of honorable mention items thrown in for good measure. Enjoy! 

10. Power 5/SEC takeover of NCAA governance (Episodes 95, 96, 97).
  9. NCAA’s interpretation and use of Alston in the Johnson suit (Episode 123).
  8. Death of NCAA credibility in infractions and enforcement (Episodes 104, 118, 134).
  7. Higher Education officially surrenders to Big Entertainment (Episode 125).
  6. Death of revenue-sharing for athletes in P5 football and basketball (Episodes 113, 120).
  5. Structural changes to P5 football (Episodes 126, 132).
  4. Midterm elections (Episodes 137, 139).
  3. NCAA cracks the dam on college sports gambling (Episodes 106, 112, 138).
  2. The EXPLOSION in college sports revenues and revenue streams.
  1. The games go on! The games go on!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2022 14:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/b97ee42b-3574-49bc-8130-203bdca2a0e4.mp3"
                length="62959369"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3935</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Employee Status, Charlie Baker, and Congress</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Employee Status, Charlie Baker, and Congress</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On December 15th, two important news stories broke. First, a National Labor Relations Board regional director in Los Angeles decided that a case for athlete employee status could move forward to an...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">32b22df7-a23f-4722-b615-49b83d66ee95</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/32b22df7-a23f-4722-b615-49b83d66ee95</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On December 15th, two important news stories broke. First, a National Labor Relations Board regional director in Los Angeles decided that a case for athlete employee status could move forward to an administrative hearing. The case involves USC football and men’s/women’s basketball players. Notably, one of the issues in that dispute is whether the Pac-12  and the NCAA are “joint employers” with USC. The joint employer issues pose risks to the Power 5 conferences and the NCAA  because it would expand the scope of coverage under the National Labor Relations Act to cover public universities. Second, the NCAA announced that Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker will be the next NCAA president. In this episode, I address both issues and what they mean, at least in the short run, for the future of college sports. In addition, I discuss (through an article published in Sportico) how status quo Power 5 and NCAA advocates have reframed their rhetoric post-mid-term.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/32b22df7-a23f-4722-b615-49b83d66ee95.mp3"
                length="75041314"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4690</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Remembering Huck Devenzio</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Remembering Huck Devenzio</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>You’ve probably never heard of Huck Devenzio. He’d like it that way. Huck was Dick Devenzio’s older brother. Dick was an athletes’ rights pioneer of some renown in the 1980s and 1990s. His mighty m...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">04888bbd-0697-471d-8212-7ded58c48ce4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/04888bbd-0697-471d-8212-7ded58c48ce4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[You’ve probably never heard of Huck Devenzio. He’d like it that way. Huck was Dick Devenzio’s older brother. Dick was an athletes’ rights pioneer of some renown in the 1980s and 1990s. His mighty megaphone was silenced in 2001 when he died from cancer. Huck passed away early Tuesday morning after a years-long battle with Parkinson’s disease. In many ways, Huck was as important to early athletes’ rights advocacy as Dick. They made a formidable team. Huck eschewed praise and the spotlight. He probably wouldn’t be happy that I am doing this episode, but here it is nonetheless—a tribute to one of the most interesting people I’ve ever known.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/04888bbd-0697-471d-8212-7ded58c48ce4.mp3"
                length="43968139"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2748</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Warnock vs. Walker and Lead1 vs. Lead1</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Warnock vs. Walker and Lead1 vs. Lead1</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Democrats have secured at least symbolic control of the Senate with a possibility of actual control if Raphael Warnock defeats Herschel Walker in the Georgia special election next month. This e...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">61954597-cebe-435f-ae22-b9efa6ba8025</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/61954597-cebe-435f-ae22-b9efa6ba8025</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Democrats have secured at least symbolic control of the Senate with a possibility of actual control if Raphael Warnock defeats Herschel Walker in the Georgia special election next month. This episode discusses the importance of that race in the college sports legislative environment. I also discuss a revealing interview that Lead1 President Tom McMillan gave last week to ESPN/SEC pundit Paul Finebaum. Lead1 is ramping up its public rhetoric on diversity, inclusion, and equity while doubling down on its members’ commitment to compensation limits for athletes and a 1950s business model.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/61954597-cebe-435f-ae22-b9efa6ba8025.mp3"
                length="53000238"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3313</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA’s Zero Integrity Anti-Gambling Charade</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA’s Zero Integrity Anti-Gambling Charade</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In September, the NCAA declared Virginia Tech football player Alan Tisdale ineligible for most of the football season. Tisdale’s crime? He placed a series of bets on NBA games through FanDuel’s pop...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">e2e2c7a6-ca94-4f2c-b9a3-6ce010370d65</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/e2e2c7a6-ca94-4f2c-b9a3-6ce010370d65</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In September, the NCAA declared Virginia Tech football player Alan Tisdale ineligible for most of the football season. Tisdale’s crime? He placed a series of bets on NBA games through FanDuel’s popular sports betting app. The bets totaled $400; most were only a dollar or two. Tisdale is over 21 and placed the bets in Virginia, which legalized sports gambling. While watching a preseason PowerPoint presentation on NCAA rules, Tisdale saw a slide on impermissible betting that used the FanDuel logo. Unaware that his bets may violate NCAA rules, Tisdale told his head coach that he had placed bets on NBA games through FanDuel. The head coach alerted compliance and Virginia Tech self-reported Tisdale’s betting to the NCAA. Neither the head coach nor the compliance director viewed Tisdale’s wagering as a big deal, yet fully complied with NCAA self-reporting protocols. The NCAA responded by declaring Tisdale ineligible under the NCAA’s “zero tolerance” policy on betting. Virginia Tech appealed the NCAA’s decision, and the NCAA restored Tisdale’s eligibility after the season was halfway over. This episode addresses the profound hypocrisy of the NCAA’s decision. While the NCAA punishes athletes like Tisdale for innocuous betting, it is in bed with the sports gambling industry. Since 2018, when states could enter the sports gambling space, the NCAA and P5 have been engaged in a sophisticated stealth campaign to normalize college sports betting so they can capitalize on the growing multi-billion-dollar college sports gambling industry.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2022 17:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/e2e2c7a6-ca94-4f2c-b9a3-6ce010370d65.mp3"
                length="57746165"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3609</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Congressional Stalemates and Athletes’ Rights</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Congressional Stalemates and Athletes’ Rights</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Voters have reduced the mid-term red wave to a purple trickle. Gone is any claim of a Republican mandate and a potential power play to end the athletes’ rights movement through a bill like Roger Wi...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">60dc5ad0-098c-4642-a7a6-6a9850f8c0a1</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/60dc5ad0-098c-4642-a7a6-6a9850f8c0a1</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Voters have reduced the mid-term red wave to a purple trickle. Gone is any claim of a Republican mandate and a potential power play to end the athletes’ rights movement through a bill like Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) “Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act.” In this episode, I think out loud about what the short-term lay of the land may be for congressional intervention on athletes’ rights issues. Is this an inflection point for the Power 5? Can they continue to tread water until 2024 under false prophecies of the impending death of college sports? Will the SEC and Big Ten be open to a more honest relationship with the laborers in football and men’s basketball? Many questions, few easy answers.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 18:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/60dc5ad0-098c-4642-a7a6-6a9850f8c0a1.mp3"
                length="58008643"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3626</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>true</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>true</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Quick Hits: Johnson, Wicker, Tuberville, 568 Exemption, and Rubio</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Quick Hits: Johnson, Wicker, Tuberville, 568 Exemption, and Rubio</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode takes a quick look at several issues that have popped up over the last couple of weeks. These issues are relevant to the P5’s/NCAA’s relentless quest for a historic congressional power...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1bab3c41-8925-479d-b64c-ca59631d7063</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/1bab3c41-8925-479d-b64c-ca59631d7063</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode takes a quick look at several issues that have popped up over the last couple of weeks. These issues are relevant to the P5’s/NCAA’s relentless quest for a historic congressional power grab. First, I look at what’s happening in the Johnson suit in the 3rd Circuit. In Johnson, athletes claim they are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The 3rd Circuit will decide that single issue. The court has scheduled oral argument for 12/15/22. I expect a decision in May or June 2023. I also look at Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) rerelease of his “Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act” in connection with an interview he gave on October 3rd to Sportico legal analyst Michael McCann. That issue leads into a discussion of Senator Tommy Tuberville’s (R-AL) race-baiting comments at a political rally in Nevada on October 8th. Finally, I look at Marco Rubio’s hypocrisy on antitrust immunities in a comparison of Rubio’s stance on the 568 Exemption and his college sports bill from June 2020, which contains a broad antitrust exemption for the NCAA and Power 5.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/1bab3c41-8925-479d-b64c-ca59631d7063.mp3"
                length="56593854"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3537</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Power 5’s Secret Congressional Playbook</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Power 5’s Secret Congressional Playbook</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Power 5 are now in overdrive in their congressional campaign to eliminate the athletes’ rights movement. I will be publishing episodes over the next few weeks that synthesize recent evidence of...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">880b4eb9-c87a-46c5-9a20-e6f10b141327</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/880b4eb9-c87a-46c5-9a20-e6f10b141327</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Power 5 are now in overdrive in their congressional campaign to eliminate the athletes’ rights movement. I will be publishing episodes over the next few weeks that synthesize recent evidence of a massive push by the Power 5 for the same federal protections and immunities (preemption of state laws, federal and state antitrust immunity, and a declaration that athletes can’t be employees) they sought in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The Power 5 campaign is sophisticated and well-organized. As a prelude to my congressional analysis, I am reprising for this an episode (36) I published on July 7th, 2021, titled “Are Power 5 Conferences Prepping for New and Improved Senate Campaign?” Set forth below is my original description of that episode.


Episode 36:
With the Senate in recess until September, it is safe to assume that the Power 5 are reframing their strategy in Congress. This episode reflects on how the Power 5 planned to pursue and disguise their interests in the Senate in late 2019 and into 2020. Through secret discussions in December 2019, Power 5 commissioners, presidents, and chancellors orchestrated a congressional influence campaign independent of the NCAA national office and Mark Emmert. In documents memorializing their stealth campaign, the Power 5 laid the framework for asserting their interests in the Senate under the NCAA banner. The execution of their plan was a fiasco and exposed the lack of leadership within the NCAA national office and the Power 5 conference commissioners’ offices. The Power 5 stressed the appearance of unity among all in-system stakeholders, particularly between the Power 5 and the NCAA. The NCAA’s/Power 5’s failure to achieve antitrust immunity, preemption of state laws, or the non-employee status of athletes has undermined BigAmateurism’s credibility in Congress and public opinion. How will the Power 5 retool its strategy in Congress? The Senate Commerce Committee will likely decide the future of college sports in the next congressional session. Expect the Power 5 to lead the charge to reassert their interests and protect their revenue streams.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/880b4eb9-c87a-46c5-9a20-e6f10b141327.mp3"
                length="71678416"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4480</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Mark Emmert Unplugged</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Mark Emmert Unplugged</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Friday, September 9th, 2022, NCAA President Mark Emmert sat for an interview with sports business analyst Kristi Dosh. Emmert’s free-wheeling comments covered an array of issues, including NIL r...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c535ffb0-6f87-41ec-ba60-952f8494958b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c535ffb0-6f87-41ec-ba60-952f8494958b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Friday, September 9th, 2022, NCAA President Mark Emmert sat for an interview with sports business analyst Kristi Dosh. Emmert’s free-wheeling comments covered an array of issues, including NIL regulation, athlete employee status, and the future of college sports. Emmert proposed that athletes be treated as “brand ambassadors” for their institution. Emmert explained that athletes—particularly revenue-producing athletes at big-time schools—provide enormous value to their university’s brand and should be paid accordingly. He suggested that these payments could be deemed NIL-related based on the value that individual sports and athletes contribute to overall university branding. Under Emmert’s model, athletes would not be employees of their university. Emmert also advocated for congressional intervention in NIL (and other) regulation. His brand ambassador model is a stunning departure from the NCAA’s/P5’s decades-long approach to amateurism-based compensation limits. Emmert provided a distorted history of the factors that led to the current perception of regulatory chaos in college sports, particularly NIL. Emmert addressed the circumstances under which the NCAA ceased its voluntary rulemaking on NIL in January of 2021, rule-making that it had promised athletes in 2019. According to Emmert, the Antitrust Division s directed the NCAA to immediately stand down on voluntary rules changes on NIL and transfer because of “antitrust concerns.” The head of the Antitrust Division at the time, Makan Delharim, offered a much different explanation for the NCAA’s cessation of voluntary rulemaking in a June 24, 2021 podcast interview. The truth of the NCAA’s decision-making in January 2021 is a window into the NCAA’s renewed strategy in 2022 to ask for a congressional bailout that would end the athletes’ rights movement.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2022 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c535ffb0-6f87-41ec-ba60-952f8494958b.mp3"
                length="82820791"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>5176</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>WSJ Hyperbole: The Transfer “Frenzy”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>WSJ Hyperbole: The Transfer “Frenzy”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Sunday, September 11th, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “The Transfer Frenzy That Is Turning College Football Rosters Upside Down.” As the title suggests, the Journal pitched...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">162aa0cc-b64d-4108-a5ca-9c7939ba5cfa</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/162aa0cc-b64d-4108-a5ca-9c7939ba5cfa</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Sunday, September 11th, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “The Transfer Frenzy That Is Turning College Football Rosters Upside Down.” As the title suggests, the Journal pitched the new transfer market as out of control. This episode analyzes the Journal article and the ease with which influential media outlets embrace and reinforce false NCAA/P5 narratives. Contrary to the Journal’s thesis, the football transfer market is no more “frenzied” than the transfer markets for many non-revenue sports or higher education transfer rates more generally.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/162aa0cc-b64d-4108-a5ca-9c7939ba5cfa.mp3"
                length="48996190"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3062</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>CFP Expansion and Crazy Money: The Ultimate Unifying Force</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>CFP Expansion and Crazy Money: The Ultimate Unifying Force</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Friday afternoon, September 2, news broke that the CFP Board of Managers voted to expand the CFP from four to twelve teams. This decision is historic and fundamentally changes the post-season fo...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">804e0ba4-2b4f-4318-9eee-799dfaa9e542</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/804e0ba4-2b4f-4318-9eee-799dfaa9e542</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Friday afternoon, September 2, news broke that the CFP Board of Managers voted to expand the CFP from four to twelve teams. This decision is historic and fundamentally changes the post-season football market. It follows years of anguished debate and conflict among and between the Power Five conferences on the appropriate CFP format. The CFP expansion saga was a reliable storyline for the sports media through 2021 and into early 2022. Indeed, the twists and turns of the expansion debate became an online soap opera. Sports media outlets appeared to have CFP expansion sources at the ready 24/7. Curiously, however, there was scant discussion of the possibility of expansion leading up to Friday’s bombshell announcement. The ACC led a values-based opposition to expansion in 2021 and early 2022. The Big Ten and Pac-12 joined in. Changes to the CFP format require unanimity among the CFP governing boards. In January 2022, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said he would veto any expansion until the ACC conducted a 365 review of big-picture college sports issues through a values-based lens. Less than eight months into its year-long study, the ACC (along with the Big Ten and Pac-12) did a U-turn on expansion. This episode discusses the CFP’s corporate structure, its relationship to the values of the NCAA/higher education, and the expansion decision and circumstances that led to it.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2022 15:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/804e0ba4-2b4f-4318-9eee-799dfaa9e542.mp3"
                length="52921667"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3308</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Curious Demise of the Independent Accountability Resolution Process</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Curious Demise of the Independent Accountability Resolution Process</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On August 17, 2022, the NCAA released a statement titled “DI Council reviews transfer proposals.” The Council accepted recommendations from two obscure committees (Independent Accountability Oversi...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">903538c0-2606-4a38-a393-8150d3d5e45c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/903538c0-2606-4a38-a393-8150d3d5e45c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On August 17, 2022, the NCAA released a statement titled “DI Council reviews transfer proposals.” The Council accepted recommendations from two obscure committees (Independent Accountability Oversight Committee and Infractions Process Committee) to eliminate the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP). The IARP was a separate infraction and enforcement process for “high stakes” NCAA cases. The Commission on College Basketball—formed in 2017 in response to the basketball-related criminal cases in the Southern District of New York—recommended the IARP as an alternative to the “old” conflict-ridden infractions and enforcement bureaucracy. The IARP was not fully operational until August 2019. The IARP received only six cases (all basketball-related) between March 2020 and February 2021. From its inception, the IARP became the target of criticism from prominent college sports leaders such as Greg Sankey. Sankey argued that cases assigned to the IARP were taking too long. The sports media and NCAA governing board leaders reinforced this narrative. This episode analyzes the IARP and the criticisms that led to its elimination. The death of the IARP is a case study in star chamber NCAA decision-making.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 20:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/903538c0-2606-4a38-a393-8150d3d5e45c.mp3"
                length="52130466"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3258</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Tommy, Joe, Nick, Greg, and the Boyz</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Tommy, Joe, Nick, Greg, and the Boyz</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Last week saw a cluster of college sports “news” stories that had texts and emails flying. The story that spawned the most interest was a new “bipartisan” NIL-related federal legislative effort led...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3f5b5eab-0b34-4546-ae62-a628514903d8</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/3f5b5eab-0b34-4546-ae62-a628514903d8</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Last week saw a cluster of college sports “news” stories that had texts and emails flying. The story that spawned the most interest was a new “bipartisan” NIL-related federal legislative effort led by Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Sports Illustrated broke the story Wednesday afternoon, August 3rd. Then SI also reported on the re-release of the Athletes Bill of Rights sponsored primarily by Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). These notable ‘breaking news” items were sandwiched between less reported (but significant) NCAA press releases. This episode discusses how “news” on the regulation and business of college sports often ignores important, co-temporal events that are seemingly unrelated.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 21:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/3f5b5eab-0b34-4546-ae62-a628514903d8.mp3"
                length="60402295"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3775</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Do Grant of Rights Contracts Raise Antitrust Issues?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Do Grant of Rights Contracts Raise Antitrust Issues?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Big-time college sports are a market defined by anticompetitive behavior. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences believe they should not have to play by the same rules as any other industry in America. T...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">8ac729fd-28bb-4f0f-a3db-7279bc410e61</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/8ac729fd-28bb-4f0f-a3db-7279bc410e61</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Big-time college sports are a market defined by anticompetitive behavior. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences believe they should not have to play by the same rules as any other industry in America. They believe—and have always believed—that they are above the law. This episode analyzes the grant of rights contracts through the lens of restraints on competition among and between Power 5 conferences after the first wave of conference realignment. The relationship among the Power 5 subcartel has been defined principally by how they have cooperated to dominate the college football marketplace and regulate college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/8ac729fd-28bb-4f0f-a3db-7279bc410e61.mp3"
                length="57379613"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3586</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Power 5 Grant of Rights Contracts: The Prisoner’s Dilemma Revisited</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Power 5 Grant of Rights Contracts: The Prisoner’s Dilemma Revisited</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In Realignment 2.0, schools in Power 5 conferences looking to leave their current conference must factor into their decision-making an arcane but powerful contractual barrier: the grant of rights. ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">00302e57-2989-450c-bb09-e7b931e9f98c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/00302e57-2989-450c-bb09-e7b931e9f98c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In Realignment 2.0, schools in Power 5 conferences looking to leave their current conference must factor into their decision-making an arcane but powerful contractual barrier: the grant of rights. Grant of rights contracts create stability in the Power 5 conference structure and disincentivize schools from changing conferences. These contracts came into use in big-time college sports after the first major conference realignment between 2012 – 2014 that gave birth to the Power 5. Grant of rights contracts requires conference member institutions to assign their television rights to the conference entity. Existing conference broadcast media contracts quantify the value of these rights. The grant of rights is in place for the broadcast media contract’s full term. By surrendering their television rights to the conference, schools are essentially forfeiting their value in the marketplace should they leave their conference. This provides a powerful incentive for schools to honor their existing conference commitment and an equally powerful disincentive for conferences looking to “poach” schools from other conferences. This episode analyzes grant of rights contracts through a framework offered in a 2017 law journal article titled “Irrevocable but Unenforceable? Collegiate Athletic Conferences’ Grant of Rights” published in the Harvard Law School Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. I spoke last week with the author of the article, Mark Wilhelm, a corporate transactions attorney with the Troutman Pepper law firm. His article received national attention after Andy Staples (The Athletic) wrote about it earlier this month. Wilhelm’s journal article discusses the factors schools may choose to weigh in decisions regarding a potential switch in conference affiliation. Wilhelm’s analysis also addresses the enforceability of grant of rights contracts.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/00302e57-2989-450c-bb09-e7b931e9f98c.mp3"
                length="51319624"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3207</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Conference Realignment 2.0: “What Hath [University Presidents] Wrought?”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Conference Realignment 2.0: “What Hath [University Presidents] Wrought?”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The dominoes are in place. How many will fall? This episode examines the big-picture implications of the most recent Power 5 backstab. As is often the case in college sports, past is prologue. The ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c10ed708-fe94-4b7b-bbd6-7c23f0f00d69</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c10ed708-fe94-4b7b-bbd6-7c23f0f00d69</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The dominoes are in place. How many will fall? This episode examines the big-picture implications of the most recent Power 5 backstab. As is often the case in college sports, past is prologue. The evolution and influence of the television era in college sports towers over the values of higher education and the “integrity of college sports.” Say goodbye to collegiality, respect for conference contracts, geographical boundaries, and the “athlete voice.” We are witnessing the logical endpoint of Board of Regents and the avarice it inspired. The SEC’s and Big Ten’s imperial march through the remaining inventory of big-time college football products was inevitable. The wreckage left behind may prove difficult to repair.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c10ed708-fe94-4b7b-bbd6-7c23f0f00d69.mp3"
                length="62453641"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3903</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Education Takes a Back Seat to Entertainment and Fan Engagement</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Education Takes a Back Seat to Entertainment and Fan Engagement</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On June 29th, the Big 12 Conference’s university presidents and chancellors hired sports and entertainment industry insider Brett Yormark as the Big 12&#039;s new conference commissioner. Yormark has no...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ff126d3d-0fbf-4f45-badd-e58f5ada85ef</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/ff126d3d-0fbf-4f45-badd-e58f5ada85ef</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On June 29th, the Big 12 Conference’s university presidents and chancellors hired sports and entertainment industry insider Brett Yormark as the Big 12's new conference commissioner. Yormark has no professional experience in higher education. In its announcement of the hire, the Big 12 lauds Yormark’s impressive credentials as the chief operating officer of Roc Nation, the chief executive officer of the New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets, and vice-president of corporate sponsorships for NASCAR. While the Big 12 presidents and chancellors made the final call on Yormark, they hired a head-hunting firm—TurnkeyZRG—to lead the search. Turnkey operates in sports entertainment, media-tech, intercollegiate athletics, and music. The NCAA has also hired Turnkey to secure the next NCAA President and the next NCAA chief financial officer. This episode discusses the absence of emphasis on education in these hires making clear that entertainment and fan engagement have relegated education to the dust bin of Power 5 and NCAA priorities.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/ff126d3d-0fbf-4f45-badd-e58f5ada85ef.mp3"
                length="64753667"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4047</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Independence Day, Reprised</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Independence Day, Reprised</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>One year ago, I published Episode 35 titled “Independence Day.” Today, I reprise that episode to refocus on the importance of applying our inalienable natural and American rights of liberty, equali...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3df05953-f371-45b9-a618-49dc3207eadf</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/3df05953-f371-45b9-a618-49dc3207eadf</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[One year ago, I published Episode 35 titled “Independence Day.” Today, I reprise that episode to refocus on the importance of applying our inalienable natural and American rights of liberty, equality, and economic self-determination to the athletes in college sports who give the revenue-producing products their value. Events of the last two weeks, including renewal of conference realignment and an emphasis on hiring key college sports decision-makers from the entertainment industry, call into question the value system of college sports and higher education writ large. The Power 5 and NCAA are nakedly and aggressively cutting the cord with their stated nonprofit educational missions in their quest for an NFL-style football product. Yet, at the same time, the Power 5 argue to Congress and federal courts that revenue-producing athletes are amateurs, not professionals, and “students,” not employees.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/3df05953-f371-45b9-a618-49dc3207eadf.mp3"
                length="53138163"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3321</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>More on the Johnson Lawsuit: The NCAA’s Bizarre Interpretation of Alston</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>More on the Johnson Lawsuit: The NCAA’s Bizarre Interpretation of Alston</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>One year ago, the US Supreme Court issued what many view as a landmark decision in NCAA v Alston. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the NCAA was not entitled to antitrust immunity. For nearly...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1a7a0ab7-b39a-429d-84be-fd2a1795bfe5</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/1a7a0ab7-b39a-429d-84be-fd2a1795bfe5</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[One year ago, the US Supreme Court issued what many view as a landmark decision in NCAA v Alston. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the NCAA was not entitled to antitrust immunity. For nearly forty years post-Board of Regents, the NCAA has successfully used off-hand language from that case as a shield from liability in lawsuits challenging the NCAA’s amateurism-based compensation limits or its regulatory authority. In short, the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was not above the law. In Johnson v NCAA, athletes allege they are employees under the Fair Labor Standards. The NCAA counters that it is entitled to a similar amateurism-based immunity created out of whole cloth by the 7th Circuit in Berger v NCAA. It treats Alston as either irrelevant to the FLSA issues or supportive of its amateurism-based immunity arguments. The NCAA’s briefing in Johnson makes one wonder whether Alston has any meaning at all. This episode analyzes the NCAA’s use of Alston and the state of amateurism in 2022.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 01:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/1a7a0ab7-b39a-429d-84be-fd2a1795bfe5.mp3"
                length="56813280"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3551</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Johnson v NCAA and the Fair Labor Standards Act: The NCAA’s Fact-Free Fantasy World</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Johnson v NCAA and the Fair Labor Standards Act: The NCAA’s Fact-Free Fantasy World</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In a trilogy of cases since late 2014, athletes claim they are employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA provides minimum wage and overtime standards for hourly workers....</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">cd186649-58ba-4b9a-93ba-63f231b7e496</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/cd186649-58ba-4b9a-93ba-63f231b7e496</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In a trilogy of cases since late 2014, athletes claim they are employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA provides minimum wage and overtime standards for hourly workers. The purpose of the FLSA is distinct from and more limited than the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which provides an avenue for workers to have a say in their work conditions through collective bargaining. Under both laws, putative workers must first establish they are indeed employees. The employee tests for the FLSA and NLRA have some overlap but are not identical. However, all employee tests are multi-factored and require extensive fact findings under broad statutory eligibility criteria that require an analysis of the totality of the circumstances. Neither law expressly excludes college athletes from coverage. In Johnson v NCAA, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will determine whether the FLSA categorically excludes athletes from FLSA coverage. The primary inquiry under the FLSA is the “economic reality” of the relationship between putative employer and employee. In the first case of the FLSA trilogy—Berger v NCAA—the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling of the district court that athletes cannot be employees under the FLSA as a matter of law. Relying on a 1992 case—Vanskike v Peters—rejecting a prisoner’s claim that his forced prison labor made him an employee under the FLSA, the district court and 7th Circuit excluded athletes as employees under the FLSA without any factual inquiry or the application of any of multi-factored tests designed to determine employee status under the FLSA. Neither the district court nor the 7th Circuit in Berger disclosed the legal rationale of Vanskike, which relied on an exception to the 13th Amendment that exempted indentured servitude for prisoners duly convicted of a crime. In essence, the Berger courts said that because of the revered tradition of amateurism and the “student-athlete,” college athletes are similarly situated to prisoners. This episode discusses the FLSA litigation and the tactics employed by federal courts and the NCAA to avoid at all costs any factual inquiry into the truth of the college sports business model and, importantly, the actual “economic reality” of the relationship between athletes and their institutional overlords.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/cd186649-58ba-4b9a-93ba-63f231b7e496.mp3"
                length="58091400"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3631</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Will the “Athlete Voice” Ever Have a Meaningful Seat at the Table?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Will the “Athlete Voice” Ever Have a Meaningful Seat at the Table?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On May 19th, the Drake Group hosted a panel discussion titled “Giving College Athletes the Right to Unionize.” An impressive panel of commentators—Bob Costas, Michael Hausfeld, Sen. Chris Murphy (D...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">cb0dc4d7-79fa-4b0b-aab2-5d75a5523413</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/cb0dc4d7-79fa-4b0b-aab2-5d75a5523413</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On May 19th, the Drake Group hosted a panel discussion titled “Giving College Athletes the Right to Unionize.” An impressive panel of commentators—Bob Costas, Michael Hausfeld, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Andy Zimbalist (moderator), and Kaiya McCollough—shared their thoughts on athletes as employees and the possibility of collective bargaining through the lens of Sen. Murphy’s federal bill, the College Right to Organize Act. This episode analyzes the panel discussion, emphasizing (1) the difficulties athletes face in having their voices heard and valued in the regulation and business model of college sports.; and (2) the ease with which false status quo narratives marginalize athletes’ voices.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/cb0dc4d7-79fa-4b0b-aab2-5d75a5523413.mp3"
                length="85216115"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>5326</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>CA Senate, Cory Booker Deep-Six Athlete Revenue-Sharing Proposals</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>CA Senate, Cory Booker Deep-Six Athlete Revenue-Sharing Proposals</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Last week the California Senate and NJ Democrat Senator Cory Booker buried the only two revenue-sharing proposals in the state or federal legislative landscape. The California bill, the “College At...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">e3a44168-a852-4f4c-8e64-4dab3e0e81e3</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/e3a44168-a852-4f4c-8e64-4dab3e0e81e3</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Last week the California Senate and NJ Democrat Senator Cory Booker buried the only two revenue-sharing proposals in the state or federal legislative landscape. The California bill, the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,” did not survive banishment to the Appropriation Committee’s “suspense file” (discussed in Episodes 113 and 117). The bill was designed to remedy the race-based financial exploitation of African American athletes in football and men’s basketball. The quiet death of the California bill is an inflection point in profit athletes’ attempts to have their true value to the college sports enterprise recognized tangibly. At the same time, in a Drake Group symposium on the integrity of college sports, Sen. Booker disclosed the removal of the revenue-sharing provisions of the “Athletes’ Bill of Rights” legislation introduced in the Senate in 2020. In its place will be a provision that provides “clarity” and “strength” to existing Title IX and gender equity laws and policies. This episode analyzes the demise of revenue-sharing and false choice between the interests of Black profit athletes in football and men’s basketball on the one hand and women’s and “Olympic” sports athletes on the other. This propagandized false choice appears to be a defining criterion in the content of any federal legislation under the rubric of “athletes’ rights.”]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/e3a44168-a852-4f4c-8e64-4dab3e0e81e3.mp3"
                length="58115641"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3632</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>College Sports’ Regulatory Crisis</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>College Sports’ Regulatory Crisis</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>College sports now exist in a vacuum of leadership, self-regulation, and values-based messaging. The NCAA national office is collapsing under the weight of its arrogance and incompetence, while the...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">b4b90b5a-b699-46df-be38-789cc35dae91</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/b4b90b5a-b699-46df-be38-789cc35dae91</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[College sports now exist in a vacuum of leadership, self-regulation, and values-based messaging. The NCAA national office is collapsing under the weight of its arrogance and incompetence, while the Power 5—through the Transformation Committee—is beginning to sound more like Mark Emmert and the worn-out NCAA propaganda machine. The regulatory crisis is particularly acute in the Power 5’s attempts to reign in what they perceive as an out-of-control name, image, and likeness market. The NIL “guidance” memo released by the Division I Board of Directors on May 9th is a testament to the impotence of the NCAA and Power 5 as enforcers of college sports’ most sacred values—no pay for play and no recruiting inducements. This episode analyzes the state of college sports regulation, emphasizing infractions and enforcement, including a historical perspective on NCAA regulatory authorities.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2022 01:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/b4b90b5a-b699-46df-be38-789cc35dae91.mp3"
                length="62227943"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3889</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>CA Senate Keeps Athletes in “Suspense” on Revenue-Sharing Bill</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>CA Senate Keeps Athletes in “Suspense” on Revenue-Sharing Bill</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Yesterday, the California Senate’s Appropriation Committee sent the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity” revenue-sharing bill into the legislative equivalent of a black hole known as the “Suspe...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">27058b94-2a85-4fd3-a6f9-55279a5d094b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/27058b94-2a85-4fd3-a6f9-55279a5d094b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Yesterday, the California Senate’s Appropriation Committee sent the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity” revenue-sharing bill into the legislative equivalent of a black hole known as the “Suspense File.” This quirky procedure removes the bill from open debate and leaves its fate in the hands of a tiny group of Senators and staffers. This process is opaque and unpredictable. While the public cannot provide further input, special interests and lobbyists exert pressure on the decision-makers in this star chamber-like environment. This episode discusses the idiosyncrasies of the Suspense File process and tracks the limited debate that occurred in two prior policy-oriented Senate Committees (Education and Judiciary). The values-based concerns—particularly Title IX and broader gender equity—raised by Senators from both parties may result in the bill dying a lonely death in the bowels of the Suspense File. Will these concerns be a bellwether for athletes’ rights debates in United States Senate, particularly the Commerce Committee?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2022 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/27058b94-2a85-4fd3-a6f9-55279a5d094b.mp3"
                length="54321408"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3395</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Power 5 are Back in Congress to Woo Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) with Gender Equity and Olympic Sports Propaganda</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Power 5 are Back in Congress to Woo Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) with Gender Equity and Olympic Sports Propaganda</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On May 5th, 2022, Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey took to the halls of the Senate to seek “help” from Congress in the form of protective federal legislation th...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">e4ba4b18-6c69-468b-9d81-96223cb3b297</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/e4ba4b18-6c69-468b-9d81-96223cb3b297</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On May 5th, 2022, Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey took to the halls of the Senate to seek “help” from Congress in the form of protective federal legislation that would eliminate the athletes’ rights movement. When it comes to college sports regulation, Cantwell and Blackburn are two of the most influential people in the Senate. Cantwell—a Democrat— is the Chair of the Commerce Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction for college sports issues. Any protective federal legislation from the Senate will originate in Commerce. Blackburn—a Republican—is also on the Commerce Committee. Blackburn’s role is crucial to the P5. She should be a reliable and influential vote for P5 interests; however, Mark Emmert’s arrogance alienated Blackburn from the NCAA/P5 campaign in Congress in 2020 and 2021. With Emmert on the way out, the P5 wants desperately to bring Blackburn back into the fold. This episode analyzes the P5’s reengagement with the Senate and what it says about the state of leadership in college sports. Of particular importance is the P5’s use of false gender equity and “Olympic sports” narratives to persuade the women of the Commerce Committee to P5-friendly legislation.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2022 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/e4ba4b18-6c69-468b-9d81-96223cb3b297.mp3"
                length="63885568"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3993</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>College Sports’ Janus-Faced Values</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>College Sports’ Janus-Faced Values</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Last Wednesday, the NCAA flushed 70 years of militant anti-gambling rhetoric and policy down the memory hole by permitting conferences and individual schools to partner with the sports betting indu...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c654e697-73ea-4a4c-a708-6e097d63b1fa</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c654e697-73ea-4a4c-a708-6e097d63b1fa</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Last Wednesday, the NCAA flushed 70 years of militant anti-gambling rhetoric and policy down the memory hole by permitting conferences and individual schools to partner with the sports betting industry. The announcement didn’t register as even a blip on the sports or mainstream media’s radar. The NCAA’s once-sacred values opposing any association with sports gambling interests vanished into thin air. Poof! This episode examines this values upheaval and what it says about college sports and higher education more broadly through the lens of sports betting, the work of the Transformation Committee, the lobbying campaigns of the NCAA and SEC, and a recent Marist public opinion poll. The post-Alston/NIL/transfer market environment has turned the NCAA’s/Power 5’s traditional value system on its head. Not far behind these unexpected milestone events are demographic trends that portend a bleak future for the NCAA’s/Power 5’s tired talking points on “amateurism” or any iteration of it. One thing is clear: the NCAA/Power 5 are in a race against momentum in the athletes’ rights movement and the mid-term election clock as they try to redefine their values on the fly. So far, the prevailing value is the almighty dollar.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2022 19:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c654e697-73ea-4a4c-a708-6e097d63b1fa.mp3"
                length="67858270"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4241</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Emmert is Out, Now What?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Emmert is Out, Now What?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Yesterday, Mark Emmert announced his resignation as NCAA president. For many, this is a long-overdue announcement. Important questions remain regarding the future of the Association and its leaders...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">54b41562-d74f-4775-b658-8ead17087dad</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/54b41562-d74f-4775-b658-8ead17087dad</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Yesterday, Mark Emmert announced his resignation as NCAA president. For many, this is a long-overdue announcement. Important questions remain regarding the future of the Association and its leadership going forward. This episode analyzes the decision, its timing, Emmert’s tenure, and the qualification criteria for the next NCAA president.

Note: The opening montage quotes are:
1. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from a Senate Commerce hearing on February 11, 2020;
2. Senator Claire McCaskill (R-MO) from a Senate Commerce hearing in 2014; and,
3. Senator Blackburn from a Senate Commerce hearing on June 9th, 2021.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/54b41562-d74f-4775-b658-8ead17087dad.mp3"
                length="58014077"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3626</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The California “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act”: Is Revenue-Sharing Politically Viable?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The California “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act”: Is Revenue-Sharing Politically Viable?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On April 20, 2022, the California Senate’s Education Committee heard debate on the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act (the “Act”). The bill was authored and sponsored by state Senator Steph...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2c466a00-f411-415e-aae4-1ae1eef51009</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/2c466a00-f411-415e-aae4-1ae1eef51009</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On April 20, 2022, the California Senate’s Education Committee heard debate on the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act (the “Act”). The bill was authored and sponsored by state Senator Stephen Bradford who co-sponsored California’s 2019 name, image, and likeness law. The Act’s essential component is a revenue-sharing framework where athletes may receive payments directly related to their athletic services if fifty percent of revenues in their sport exceed the total cost of athletics scholarships in that sport. The Act passed the Education Committee 4-0-3 (4 yes, zero no, and three abstentions). A third-party fiduciary would manage revenues available for distribution from the trust fund. Athletes must graduate within six years to be eligible for distributions. Notably, the Act does not permit any trust fund distributions to create an employer-employee relationship with the athletes. Of central concern to the Education Committee were the method of calculating revenues and expenses and the potential impact on non-revenue sports and athletes. The Act now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further debate and another vote. This episode analyzes the Act as a post-Alston/NIL/transfer stress test on the state of athletes’ rights in 2022. Will legislative decision-makers in California and elsewhere be open to revenue-sharing as a form of pay for play “light”?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/2c466a00-f411-415e-aae4-1ae1eef51009.mp3"
                length="70398642"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4400</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Is the Mid-American Conference’s Sports Betting Deal a Trojan Horse for Power 5 Mega-Deals?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Is the Mid-American Conference’s Sports Betting Deal a Trojan Horse for Power 5 Mega-Deals?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>According to a recent article in Sportico, the Mid-American Conference (MAC) has asked the NCAA for “clarity” on whether the MAC’s contract with Genius Sports violates the NCAA’s anti-sports bettin...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">bf2ccaf5-62a0-4085-9d5b-bc777d65911e</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/bf2ccaf5-62a0-4085-9d5b-bc777d65911e</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[According to a recent article in Sportico, the Mid-American Conference (MAC) has asked the NCAA for “clarity” on whether the MAC’s contract with Genius Sports violates the NCAA’s anti-sports betting rules. This episode analyzes the cynical ways the NCAA and major conferences are normalizing betting on college sports and the massive revenue bonanza that will flow from that normalization.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/bf2ccaf5-62a0-4085-9d5b-bc777d65911e.mp3"
                length="44101902"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2756</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Tom McMillan Channels Chicken Little for University Trustees</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Tom McMillan Channels Chicken Little for University Trustees</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On April 12th, Tom McMillan appeared in a forum for university trustees titled “Name, Image, and Likeness(“NIL”): What it Means for College Governing Boards. The American Council of Trustees and Al...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">bcf42b56-28e9-4a57-9485-97ef6e9b5a9f</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/bcf42b56-28e9-4a57-9485-97ef6e9b5a9f</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On April 12th, Tom McMillan appeared in a forum for university trustees titled “Name, Image, and Likeness(“NIL”): What it Means for College Governing Boards. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni hosted the forum. McMillan was a former member of the University of Maryland Board of Trustees. Since 2015, McMillan has been CEO of Lead1, a trade association for 131 FBS athletics directors, including the 65 Power 5 schools. Lead1 has taken policy positions on various issues including NIL, athletes as employees, infractions, diversity/inclusion/equity, transfer rules, NCAA governance, and importantly, sports betting.  Joining McMillan were Michael Hsu, an athletes’ rights advocate and former member of the Minnesota Board of Regents, and Lyle Adams, the owner of Spry, a NIL company. McMillan’s message for university trustees was simple: the sky is falling in an unregulated and out of control NIL market and only Congress can save college sports from imminent collapse. McMillan recycled worn-out status quo talking points from the very beginning of the NIL debate in 2019. He also added a few new ones, including that unregulated NIL deals might increase susceptibility (primarily for star athletes) to sports betting corruption. The message from McMillan was clear: sports betting is bad news and posed a new and alarming threat to the integrity of college sports. This episode examines McMillan’s arguments for Congressional intervention and his role as a paid advocate for FBS athletics directors’ interests.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/bcf42b56-28e9-4a57-9485-97ef6e9b5a9f.mp3"
                length="70147445"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4384</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Final Four Flotsam and Jetsam</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Final Four Flotsam and Jetsam</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>History may remember the 2022 Final Four for what happened outside the arena than within it. Will Mark Emmert’s press conference disaster(s) be the beginning of the end of his tenure as NCAA Presid...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">e7e40dbe-bcb5-4c93-a9e0-6e35a3c45d74</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/e7e40dbe-bcb5-4c93-a9e0-6e35a3c45d74</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[History may remember the 2022 Final Four for what happened outside the arena than within it. Will Mark Emmert’s press conference disaster(s) be the beginning of the end of his tenure as NCAA President? Will Kansas’ national championship insulate it from a harsh ruling by the NCAA’s Independent Accountability Resolution hearing panel? What does Bob Bowlsby’s decision to step down as Big 12 conference commissioner mean for the Big 12 and the Power 5? Can Greg Sankey and his Division I Board of Director’s Transformation Committee save college sports from self-destruction? Will the incessant cries from the NCAA/Power 5 for a congressional bail-out fall on deaf ears? Will athletes’ rights pathways broaden or contract? What power does the NCAA president have? These questions and issues are the flotsam and jetsam of the 2022 Final Four. This episode sorts through the trash.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/e7e40dbe-bcb5-4c93-a9e0-6e35a3c45d74.mp3"
                length="59541313"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3721</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Mark Emmert, Master Dissembler</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Mark Emmert, Master Dissembler</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On March 31st, Mark Emmert sat for his annual Final Four press conference. Coach K warmed up Emmert’s seat in his presser immediately preceding Emmert’s. Coach K—not one to mince words when annoyed...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">22989d5c-8b94-439d-823d-ec564f8b14ef</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/22989d5c-8b94-439d-823d-ec564f8b14ef</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On March 31st, Mark Emmert sat for his annual Final Four press conference. Coach K warmed up Emmert’s seat in his presser immediately preceding Emmert’s. Coach K—not one to mince words when annoyed—threw some serious shade at Emmert. Coach K asked the same question plaguing Emmert’s tenure from the beginning in 2010: who is in charge, and where is the college sports ship heading? True to his purpose as the NCAA’s master dissembler, Emmert served up a pile of NCAA/Power 5 garbage wrapped in the glory of this Final Four, and the beauty of college sports writ large. But Emmert’s actual audience in his 30-minute stump speech was the United States Senate, not coaches, the sports media, or consumers. Carefully prepped by NCAA/Power 5 lawyers and lobbyists, Emmert laid the foundation for the NCAA’s/Power 5’s re-engagement with Congress—most likely after the mid-term elections. At every turn, Emmert invoked the need for Congress to save college sports as we know them. One thing is clear. The NCAA/Power 5 war against revenue-producing athletes is far from over.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2022 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/22989d5c-8b94-439d-823d-ec564f8b14ef.mp3"
                length="50120918"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3133</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Unique Value of Big-Time Division I Men’s Basketball Players to the NCAA and All of College Sports</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Unique Value of Big-Time Division I Men’s Basketball Players to the NCAA and All of College Sports</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>According to the college sports commentariat, this year’s Final Four may be the most compelling (and valuable) in the tournament’s history. After a feel-good run by St. Peter’s, the tournament has ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">43f87fc1-2c6d-4c58-9ce5-4844a5705af2</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/43f87fc1-2c6d-4c58-9ce5-4844a5705af2</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[According to the college sports commentariat, this year’s Final Four may be the most compelling (and valuable) in the tournament’s history. After a feel-good run by St. Peter’s, the tournament has reverted—as always—to its basketball blue blood standard-bearers: Duke, Kansas, UNC, and Villanova. The college sports ecosystem is in a feeding frenzy to capitalize on these Final Four athletes’ unique talents and achievements. Lost in the noise is a stark reality: the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament is the oxygen that supports the corrupt NCAA bureaucracy. In athletes’ rights discussions, the interests of revenue-producing football and men’s basketball players are conflated to suggest that they stand on equal footing in underwriting the excesses of Big Amateurism. While these two stakeholder groups have much in common, high-level Division I men’s basketball plays a unique and critical role in the exploitative business model. Because of the 1984 Board of Regents decision, the NCAA doesn’t receive any revenue from any big-time football products, including the post-season CFP and bowl game revenue streams. After losing its football empire in 1984, the NCAA was left with its consolation prize: the Division I men’s basketball tournament. Since then, the NCAA has marketed, branded, and exploited the commercial value of this single tournament as if its life depends upon it—because it does. This episode examines the unique value of high-level men’s basketball teams and players to the NCAA and Association-wide beneficiaries of March Madness revenue. Using the NCAA‘s 2018 Form 990 tax return, I break down how the NCAA claims to spend the 1.1 billion dollars per year it receives through its long-term contract with CBS/Turner. I also discuss the bonus structures in Final Four coaches’ and athletics directors’ contracts that relate to the performance of their teams in this NCAA tournament. Would it be the end of the world if the players responsible for these bonuses got one of their own?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/43f87fc1-2c6d-4c58-9ce5-4844a5705af2.mp3"
                length="67246378"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4203</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Holden Thorp, Unplugged</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Holden Thorp, Unplugged</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In a March 17th, 2022, podcast interview, former UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp (2008-2013) spoke candidly on the state of college sports and the power of the NCAA’s amateurism lie. In 2010, Thorp and...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">82f04a62-7ed7-480b-a8a1-52a6a8a6e524</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/82f04a62-7ed7-480b-a8a1-52a6a8a6e524</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In a March 17th, 2022, podcast interview, former UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp (2008-2013) spoke candidly on the state of college sports and the power of the NCAA’s amateurism lie. In 2010, Thorp and UNC became embroiled in an academic scandal that consumed the university for years. Thorp was among the many casualties of that scandal. The interview, conducted on Dr. Karen Weaver’s podcast titled Trustees and Presidents—Opportunities and Challenges in Intercollegiate Athletics—is a sobering insight into the realities of the big-time college sports industry and its impact on the values of higher education. Thorp concludes it is impossible to field consistently winning football and men’s basketball teams while preserving academic integrity. According to Thorp, institutional stakeholders have succumbed to an “intoxicating drug” fueled by the lie of the amateur ideal that permits stakeholders to hold—and harmonize— these irreconcilable beliefs. This episode discusses Dr. Thorp’s views and whether institutional decision-making stakeholders can face the truths of the big-time college sports business model.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2022 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/82f04a62-7ed7-480b-a8a1-52a6a8a6e524.mp3"
                length="59270044"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3704</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Wanna Bet? The NCAA’s U-turn on College Sports Gambling</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Wanna Bet? The NCAA’s U-turn on College Sports Gambling</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>For nearly seventy years, the NCAA militantly opposed any association with any component of the gambling industry. Now, with the NCAA’s/Power 5’s amateurism model in question, Big Amateurism is nor...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">23130af0-ec48-4cf5-b72c-aae4dca1b4ab</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/23130af0-ec48-4cf5-b72c-aae4dca1b4ab</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[For nearly seventy years, the NCAA militantly opposed any association with any component of the gambling industry. Now, with the NCAA’s/Power 5’s amateurism model in question, Big Amateurism is normalizing its burgeoning relationship with Big Gambling. On the backside of a 2018 US Supreme Court decision striking down a 1992 federal anti-gambling law (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act), the NCAA has quietly shifted to gambling-friendly messaging. In 2018, just after the Supreme Court decision, the NCAA partnered with Genius Sports. A central component of Genius’ business model is to purchase “official” sports data from professional sports leagues for resale to third parties in the sports gambling market. Genius bought the right to use and manage official NCAA statistical data. According to the NCAA, its contract with Genius does not permit Genius to use NCAA data for sports betting. However, in a recent op-ed piece in Sportico, the president and founder of Genius suggested that its ten-year contract with the NCAA envisioned an NCAA transition to college sports gambling. Just two weeks ago, the Mid-American Conference (MAC) announced its partnership with Genius. While the parties have been coy about the terms of that contract, comments by the MAC conference commissioner suggest that Genius will use MAC data for gambling. This episode discusses the normalization of college sports gambling by the NCAA, conferences, sports media, and gambling industry interests. This fundamental change in NCAA values is being re-propagandized as a wonderful thing for “student-athletes,” particularly those in women’s and “Olympic” sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/23130af0-ec48-4cf5-b72c-aae4dca1b4ab.mp3"
                length="60587034"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3787</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Churchill Blues</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Churchill Blues</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In a Sportico opinion piece this morning, Syracuse professor and faculty athletics representative Rick Burton argued that college sports need a Churchillian savior. Burton concludes that “21st cent...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">99999d6e-4cd7-4352-bf28-bab2451b5a06</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/99999d6e-4cd7-4352-bf28-bab2451b5a06</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In a Sportico opinion piece this morning, Syracuse professor and faculty athletics representative Rick Burton argued that college sports need a Churchillian savior. Burton concludes that “21st century realities mean an empire of athletic enterprise is under siege, and a visionary hero might come in handy.” Burton’s Churchill shortlist is Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith, Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and a Silicon Valley billionaire. Burton’s quixotic quest for a college sports messiah rests on false NCAA/Power 5 narratives. This episode discussed the ease with which in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries insinuate misleading narratives into the public consciousness to obscure the failure of presidential leadership that has defined the voluntary regulation of college sports for decades.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2022 00:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/99999d6e-4cd7-4352-bf28-bab2451b5a06.mp3"
                length="63432500"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3965</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>What is the State of “Amateurism” in 2022?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>What is the State of “Amateurism” in 2022?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The voluntary regulation of college is in an unprecedented power vacuum. The NCAA Division I Board of Director’s Transformation Committee will decide the future of voluntary regulation and likely t...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c84e5082-f7b3-47ef-a2fa-b3c0dc6bf366</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c84e5082-f7b3-47ef-a2fa-b3c0dc6bf366</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The voluntary regulation of college is in an unprecedented power vacuum. The NCAA Division I Board of Director’s Transformation Committee will decide the future of voluntary regulation and likely the future of college sports. Perhaps the most pressing issue for the Transformation Committee is how it sees its regulatory authority on athlete compensation limits, whether through the lens of traditional “amateurism” or the new Constitution’s “Collegiate Student-Athlete Model.” This episode discusses the current state of the NCAA’s/Power 5’s amateurism dilemma. Using Brent Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in Alston as a template, I analyze what amateurism means in 2022 and the likely pathways forward for both institutional and athlete interests.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c84e5082-f7b3-47ef-a2fa-b3c0dc6bf366.mp3"
                length="60793925"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3800</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Chaos as a Big-Time College Sports Regulatory Strategy</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Chaos as a Big-Time College Sports Regulatory Strategy</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>March Madness is in full swing. The NCAA and its corporate sponsors are set to make a killing in New Orleans. But the Madness of the Division I men’s basketball tournament pales in comparison to th...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c88dbdec-252b-4673-a1bf-2a90fcde9cc7</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c88dbdec-252b-4673-a1bf-2a90fcde9cc7</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[March Madness is in full swing. The NCAA and its corporate sponsors are set to make a killing in New Orleans. But the Madness of the Division I men’s basketball tournament pales in comparison to the broader college sports chaos narratives that in-system stakeholder market participants are spinning for public consumption. From deregulated NIL to the impact of the Alston ruling, to the power vacuum in the voluntary regulation of college sports, to CFP expansion talks, to continued fallout from the 2017-2018 college basketball “scandal,” to the quiet normalization of betting interests in college sports, BigAmateurism’s mighty media megaphones are working overtime to spread the word that the chaos in college sports is unsustainable. This episode explores how portrayals of the college sports chaos theory suggest solutions that are more aligned with protecting institutional and corporate interests than with protecting the interests of revenue-producing athletes whose labors underwrite the entire industry.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c88dbdec-252b-4673-a1bf-2a90fcde9cc7.mp3"
                length="71649995"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4478</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Reflections on Coach K’s Career</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Reflections on Coach K’s Career</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, I indulge some nostalgia and reflect on Coach K’s historic 42-year career as Duke’s head basketball coach. His success and influence shouldn’t be measured solely by wins, losses, c...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c40481e8-dbbc-4e2e-a55d-da36e71b1b6b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c40481e8-dbbc-4e2e-a55d-da36e71b1b6b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, I indulge some nostalgia and reflect on Coach K’s historic 42-year career as Duke’s head basketball coach. His success and influence shouldn’t be measured solely by wins, losses, championships, All-Americans, and gold medals. Perhaps Coach K’s most significant legacy is his loyalty to the institutions that shaped his life and career. The principles of Duke’s original motion offense—balance, readiness, communication, purpose, and adaptability—are an apt template for the personal characteristics that have made Coach K the best coach in the history of college basketball. Also important in the rise of Duke basketball under Coach K were external influences early in his career, including the launch of ESPN, the US Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Board of Regents, Duke’s 1979 Retrenchment Plan, and the advent of the US News and World Report rankings. I also discuss Coach K’s transition from his first three years to his breakthrough season in 1983-84 and two milestone events in that season—one of which has received little attention.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c40481e8-dbbc-4e2e-a55d-da36e71b1b6b.mp3"
                length="60823182"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3801</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Bob Bowlsby’s Musings on Athletes as Employees</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Bob Bowlsby’s Musings on Athletes as Employees</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Friday, February 25, 2022, Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke at an Aspen Institute forum on college sports and the possibility of athletes as university employees. Bowlsby’s comments provide...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a530f944-5c3c-4a83-80c9-307700ddcabe</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a530f944-5c3c-4a83-80c9-307700ddcabe</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Friday, February 25, 2022, Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke at an Aspen Institute forum on college sports and the possibility of athletes as university employees. Bowlsby’s comments provide insight into the difficulty in-system stakeholder beneficiaries now face in articulating a forward-thinking, coherent position on the future of college sports, particularly regarding the fundamental relationship between athletes and their universities. While acknowledging that college sports are in unchartered waters after the hurricane of 2021, his comments consistently landed with worn-out NCAA/Power 5 talking points used in 2019 and 2020 to preserve the pre-Alston/NIL/transfer market status quo. Bowlsby’s detached perspective belied his position as one of the most influential individuals in college sports. As with so many discussions on the path forward for college sports, Bowlsby’s thinking begs a fundamental question in college sports voluntary regulation: who the hell is in charge?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a530f944-5c3c-4a83-80c9-307700ddcabe.mp3"
                length="77798188"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4862</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Athletes as Employees: Will the NCAA/Power 5 Continue Their Totalitarian Opposition?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Athletes as Employees: Will the NCAA/Power 5 Continue Their Totalitarian Opposition?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>For seventy years, the NCAA and in-system stakeholders-beneficiaries have militantly enforced their classification of athletes as “students” rather than employees. There is scant evidence that the ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">505800f4-21e9-4cde-b142-ba15ca56e401</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/505800f4-21e9-4cde-b142-ba15ca56e401</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[For seventy years, the NCAA and in-system stakeholders-beneficiaries have militantly enforced their classification of athletes as “students” rather than employees. There is scant evidence that the NCAA/Power 5 have budged from that position. This episode frames the athletes as employees debate from a values-based perspective. I use NCAA/Power 5-friendly hearings in the Senate in 2020 and two pieces of proposed legislation to analyze the stakeholder polarization in this debate.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/505800f4-21e9-4cde-b142-ba15ca56e401.mp3"
                length="58532762"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3658</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “New” NCAA: Power 5 Autonomy 2.0</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “New” NCAA: Power 5 Autonomy 2.0</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA Constitution Committee hailed the make-over of the NCAA Constitution as a transformative event for the NCAA and college sports regulation. In that framing, the NCAA, Power 5, and in-system...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">c324c50e-500c-4c7d-a8b1-82acff301575</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/c324c50e-500c-4c7d-a8b1-82acff301575</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA Constitution Committee hailed the make-over of the NCAA Constitution as a transformative event for the NCAA and college sports regulation. In that framing, the NCAA, Power 5, and in-system stakeholders suggest the “new” NCAA is the product of original thinking. In fact, the recently ratified NCAA Constitution is a carbon copy of the Power 5’s 2013-2014 campaign for the Autonomy classification and legislative authority. Using rarely discussed evidence from the O’Bannon case, I analyze the Power 5’s Autonomy campaign in 2013-2014 and compare it to the work of the NCAA Constitution Committee in 2021-2022. This comparison exposes the NCAA’s constitutional overhaul as little more than unfinished business from the Power 5’s Autonomy power grab. Both campaigns were the product of eerily similar turmoil in the college sports world, including external regulatory threats (O’Bannon and Northwestern unionization), frustration with NCAA national office leadership, infractions and enforcement train wrecks, and a general sense that the walls were closing in on the big-time college sports status quo. On the back end of the firestorm of 2013-2014, the NCAA and its corrupt national office escaped relatively unscathed. At the same time, the Power 5 used crisis as opportunity to enhance its authority and autonomy under the NCAA umbrella. Having completed its Autonomy power grab in 2021-2022, can the Power 5 manage the current firestorm and reclaim the pre-Alston/NIL/transfer status quo? If past is prologue, the Vegas odds are on the Power 5’s side.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/c324c50e-500c-4c7d-a8b1-82acff301575.mp3"
                length="65024087"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4064</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The World According to the Power 5 Football Elite</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The World According to the Power 5 Football Elite</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Heads Up for this Episode: I have an extended introductory montage comprised of clips from two sets of Senate hearings, one in 1997 and the other in 2003. Both hearings focus on anticompetitive beh...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">17abf673-933d-4ad5-b6bb-679da1a47c30</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/17abf673-933d-4ad5-b6bb-679da1a47c30</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Heads Up for this Episode: I have an extended introductory montage comprised of clips from two sets of Senate hearings, one in 1997 and the other in 2003. Both hearings focus on anticompetitive behavior by big-time football conferences and schools in the post-season bowl market. While the post-season bowl marketplace provides context, the testimony of in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries arguing to preserve the then-existing status quo offers insight into how the big-time college football interests see their place in college sports writ large. The self-interested opinions and values expressed by NCAA presidents and Power 5 conference commissioners in these hearings are alive and well today. Set forth below in chronological order is a list of montage clips. I provide links to the hearings on my podcast website (bigamateurism.com). 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies, and Business Rights: “College Football Bowl Alliance” (May 22, 1997)

Clip 1: Mike Dewine (R-OH)
Clip 2: Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Clip 3: Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Cedric Dempsey (NCAA President)
Clip 4: Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Clip 5: David Baker (Wyoming AD)
Clip 6: Jim Delaney (Big Ten Commissioner)

Senate Judiciary Committee: “Competition in College Bowl Games” (October 29, 2003)

Clip 7: Myles Brand (NCAA President)
Clip 8: Harvey Perlman (Chancellor, University of Nebraska)]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 13:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/17abf673-933d-4ad5-b6bb-679da1a47c30.mp3"
                length="72946085"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4559</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>What’s Past is Prologue: A Mini-History of Modern College Football</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>What’s Past is Prologue: A Mini-History of Modern College Football</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Past is prologue for the evolving college sports marketplace and regulatory model. This episode offers a curated history of modern college sports from World War II to the present. As with nearly al...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">7e1a572a-ffae-4e17-b060-0157b112eab0</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/7e1a572a-ffae-4e17-b060-0157b112eab0</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Past is prologue for the evolving college sports marketplace and regulatory model. This episode offers a curated history of modern college sports from World War II to the present. As with nearly all aspects of big-time college sports, big-time football is at the center of every crucial milestone.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2022 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/7e1a572a-ffae-4e17-b060-0157b112eab0.mp3"
                length="47521628"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2970</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Power 5 Football by the Purse Strings and the Heartstrings</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Power 5 Football by the Purse Strings and the Heartstrings</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Big-time college football is the king of college sports culturally and financially. Because Power 5 football resides under the NCAA regulatory umbrella, these fundamental facts are often obscured. ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">d2e6c7b5-e4c0-446f-9787-ab541293c84f</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/d2e6c7b5-e4c0-446f-9787-ab541293c84f</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Big-time college football is the king of college sports culturally and financially. Because Power 5 football resides under the NCAA regulatory umbrella, these fundamental facts are often obscured. Lost in discussions about the NCAA as a national regulator and the future of college sports regulation is the dominance of football revenue in the overall business model. This episode looks at big-time football’s influence at the cultural and financial levels. I reflect on my personal experience—as a son of Tobacco Road and former Duke basketball player and as an interloper in the world of SEC football—to discuss the comparative cultural importance of football and men’s basketball. I also compare and contrast the financial impact of these two sports relying on a new financial database compiled by Sportico.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 30 Jan 2022 19:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/d2e6c7b5-e4c0-446f-9787-ab541293c84f.mp3"
                length="70261129"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4391</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>For Power 5/NCAA Public Relations Campaigns, All Roads Lead to the Senate Commerce Committee</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>For Power 5/NCAA Public Relations Campaigns, All Roads Lead to the Senate Commerce Committee</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, I look at the role of the NCAA and Power 5 as propagandists in their quest for federal, protective intervention in college sports, emphasizing their target audience: the Senate Com...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">9e7c2ee4-0735-497b-a72e-7d30a4c98b7c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/9e7c2ee4-0735-497b-a72e-7d30a4c98b7c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, I look at the role of the NCAA and Power 5 as propagandists in their quest for federal, protective intervention in college sports, emphasizing their target audience: the Senate Commerce Committee. Commerce has original legislative and oversight jurisdiction for sports-related matters and has been the epicenter of the NCAA/Power 5 campaigns to obtain unprecedented federal protections and immunities. The Power 5 now controls voluntary, private college sports regulation under the NCAA umbrella. How are they positioning themselves from a public messaging standpoint for a new and improved strategy in the Senate?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/9e7c2ee4-0735-497b-a72e-7d30a4c98b7c.mp3"
                length="65419073"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4089</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Greg Sankey in Charge</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Greg Sankey in Charge</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>January 20th marked the official beginning of SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey’s new role as the unofficial czar of college sports when the NCAA membership voted to ratify the new NCAA constitution. As...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">eb869b51-60e4-44ef-bc0c-94a761acc42a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/eb869b51-60e4-44ef-bc0c-94a761acc42a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[January 20th marked the official beginning of SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey’s new role as the unofficial czar of college sports when the NCAA membership voted to ratify the new NCAA constitution. As co-chair of the Division I Board of Director’s Transformation Committee, Sankey (and co-chair Julie Cromer, athletics director at Ohio University) will utilize Division I’s new authorities to operate largely independent of the NCAA national office bureaucracy. On Friday, January 21st, Sankey and Cromer sat for a podcast interview in the NCAA’s “Social Series” podcast. This episode analyzes Sankey’s and Cromer’s comments and how they framed the purpose for, and work of, the Transformation Committee. Sankey’s new role poses complex messaging challenges as he tries to reconcile the tension between the public face of the Committee and the realities of the regulatory and legal environment in college sports in 2022. Those realities rest squarely on the interests of Power 5 football—an obvious truth obscured by Sankey’s comments.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 18:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/eb869b51-60e4-44ef-bc0c-94a761acc42a.mp3"
                length="57730280"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3608</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Jim Phillips, the Knight Commission, and the NCAA Constitution</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Jim Phillips, the Knight Commission, and the NCAA Constitution</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>As a prelude to the NCAA’s vote today on the proposed constitution, I look at three things over the last week that may portend choppy waters going forward: (1) the ACC’s announcement that it seeks ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">83ba21b7-8f63-4b2a-9264-0498ef7c1c00</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/83ba21b7-8f63-4b2a-9264-0498ef7c1c00</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As a prelude to the NCAA’s vote today on the proposed constitution, I look at three things over the last week that may portend choppy waters going forward: (1) the ACC’s announcement that it seeks a year-long pause on CFP expansion talks; (2) an op-ed in USA Today by Knight Commission leaders that align with the ACC’s announcement; and (3) an NCAA podcast episode that tempers expectations on what may follow the likely ratification of the new constitution.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/83ba21b7-8f63-4b2a-9264-0498ef7c1c00.mp3"
                length="72555307"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4535</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Convention Hoopla</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Convention Hoopla</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA is in full propaganda mode for its upcoming convention from January 19th – 22nd. The convention’s centerpiece is a vote to ratify the new NCAA constitution. This episode discusses the conv...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">6638ca3c-9615-4ccc-9218-1af2c2a3160a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/6638ca3c-9615-4ccc-9218-1af2c2a3160a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA is in full propaganda mode for its upcoming convention from January 19th – 22nd. The convention’s centerpiece is a vote to ratify the new NCAA constitution. This episode discusses the convention, its action items, its portrayal by the NCAA, and the likely consequences/next steps after ratifying the new constitution.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/6638ca3c-9615-4ccc-9218-1af2c2a3160a.mp3"
                length="43525116"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2720</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Nick Saban and Kirby Smart Concerned for the “Have Nots” in College Football? Really?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Nick Saban and Kirby Smart Concerned for the “Have Nots” in College Football? Really?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Alabama coach Nick Saban and Georgia coach Kirby Smart used a joint presser before tonight’s CFP championship to lobby for federal NIL regulation. Rather than dismiss such policy talk as a distract...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f11a429e-ae06-4fad-81e6-8299913ef5b9</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f11a429e-ae06-4fad-81e6-8299913ef5b9</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Alabama coach Nick Saban and Georgia coach Kirby Smart used a joint presser before tonight’s CFP championship to lobby for federal NIL regulation. Rather than dismiss such policy talk as a distraction from the game, Saban and Smart made it clear that they were on the same page regarding the federalization of the NIL marketplace. Their primary justification was to prevent the “haves” in college football from running roughshod over the “have nots.” ESPN treated this comical justification for a re-engagement with Congress as legitimate. This episode analyzes the coaches’ comments and what they may portend for the Power 5’s congressional strategy in 2022.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2022 19:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f11a429e-ae06-4fad-81e6-8299913ef5b9.mp3"
                length="55827745"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3489</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (# 1): The Games Go On!</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (# 1): The Games Go On!</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>For over seventy years, the NCAA and in-system stakeholder beneficiaries of the big-time college sports marketplace have proclaimed that any challenge to the NCAA’s regulatory authority or basic am...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1c6ffb1a-2e09-490d-aec4-181ad66612c2</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/1c6ffb1a-2e09-490d-aec4-181ad66612c2</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[For over seventy years, the NCAA and in-system stakeholder beneficiaries of the big-time college sports marketplace have proclaimed that any challenge to the NCAA’s regulatory authority or basic amateurism-based business model would result in the fatal collapse of college sports. From capitulation to the full athletics scholarship in 1956 to the name, image, and likeness debate in 2021, the NCAA has opposed the modernization of college sports with totalitarian militance. Yet with every change—most imposed by the very external regulatory threats the NCAA/Power 5 seek to eliminate—college sports not only survived but thrived. This episode closes out 2021 with a discussion of several fundamental changes to the college sports landscape that disproves the NCAA’s fearmongering. As the Supreme Court said in its dismissal of the NCAA’s latest “sky is falling” campaign: the games go on!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/1c6ffb1a-2e09-490d-aec4-181ad66612c2.mp3"
                length="58073025"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3630</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (# 2): The Alston Decision — It’s Unanimous!</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (# 2): The Alston Decision — It’s Unanimous!</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On June 21st, 2021, the United States Supreme Court powerfully delivered a long-overdue course correction to the NCAA in its 37 year-long (post-Board of Regents) imperial march through the federal ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">bd7e89a6-fcd0-48c4-859e-9b5870320914</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/bd7e89a6-fcd0-48c4-859e-9b5870320914</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On June 21st, 2021, the United States Supreme Court powerfully delivered a long-overdue course correction to the NCAA in its 37 year-long (post-Board of Regents) imperial march through the federal judiciary. While the Court was not asked to put amateurism out of its misery for good, it rejected the NCAA’s core argument(s) that the NCAA was entitled to absolute judicially created antitrust immunity. In short, the Court told the NCAA it was not above the law. This episode analyzes the Alston decision as a historic—yet symbolic—normative reframe of the NCAA’s fundamental relationship with the laborers whose talents underwrite the NCAA administrative state and the college sports industry writ large.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/bd7e89a6-fcd0-48c4-859e-9b5870320914.mp3"
                length="67730371"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4233</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (#s 5, 4, 3)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>BigAmateurism’s Top Ten of 2021 (#s 5, 4, 3)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The countdown continues… In this episode I reveal items 5, 4, and 3 on my Top Ten list. Enjoy!</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a49bd2f5-677e-4ab9-93f2-7079ef46225d</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a49bd2f5-677e-4ab9-93f2-7079ef46225d</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The countdown continues… In this episode I reveal items 5, 4, and 3 on my Top Ten list. Enjoy!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2021 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a49bd2f5-677e-4ab9-93f2-7079ef46225d.mp3"
                length="56561683"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3535</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>What a Year! BigAmateurism&#039;s Top Ten of 2021 (# 10-6)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>What a Year! BigAmateurism&#039;s Top Ten of 2021 (# 10-6)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>What were the most important events in college sports in this remarkable—perhaps historic—year of 2021? Let’s start the countdown. In this episode, I reveal in reverse chronological order numbers 1...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">01668c27-f805-4da8-8816-d15f79c8224c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/01668c27-f805-4da8-8816-d15f79c8224c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[What were the most important events in college sports in this remarkable—perhaps historic—year of 2021? Let’s start the countdown. In this episode, I reveal in reverse chronological order numbers 10 through 6. I also toss in some honorable mentions at the beginning of the episode to set the tone. Enjoy!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2021 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/01668c27-f805-4da8-8816-d15f79c8224c.mp3"
                length="54728514"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3421</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Requiem for the College Basketball “Scandal”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Requiem for the College Basketball “Scandal”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This week, the US Supreme declined to hear the Gatto appeal, which marks the end of the legal proceedings arising from the 2017-2018 college basketball “scandal.” In this episode, I discuss the imp...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ee354c55-9ec9-461c-8151-e861c85468ca</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/ee354c55-9ec9-461c-8151-e861c85468ca</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This week, the US Supreme declined to hear the Gatto appeal, which marks the end of the legal proceedings arising from the 2017-2018 college basketball “scandal.” In this episode, I discuss the impact of those prosecutions and whether they should have been brought in the first place. I focus on 2nd Circuit judge Gerard Lynch’s dissenting opinion in which he subtly questions the wisdom of pursuing these cases. Judge Lynch beautifully captures the essence of the hypocrisy in big-time college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2021 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/ee354c55-9ec9-461c-8151-e861c85468ca.mp3"
                length="44157906"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2760</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Auburn’s Fake Pearl</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Auburn’s Fake Pearl</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On December 10, 2021, the NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI) issued a head-scratching decision in the Auburn University basketball “scandal” case. Despite finding that Auburn head coach Bruce Pear...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">9a744979-30a5-4d15-9df5-a1ec3a0e9f8a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/9a744979-30a5-4d15-9df5-a1ec3a0e9f8a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On December 10, 2021, the NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI) issued a head-scratching decision in the Auburn University basketball “scandal” case. Despite finding that Auburn head coach Bruce Pearl committed a Level I (most egregious) violation because of his failure to adequately monitor lead assistant coach Chuck Person—a former Auburn and NBA basketball star—Pearl received a merely tap on the wrist. Person was swept up in an FBI sting in which a professional athlete financial advisor (and FBI informant) paid Person to steer NBA-quality Auburn players to the advisor. The advisor—Marty Blazer—faced decades of jail time in a completely unrelated case and used his knowledge of “corruption” in college basketball—and his cooperation with the FBI— to avoid jail time. Person accepted money from Blazer/FBI and paid a small amount to two athletes and their parents. Person was arrested in September 2017 and charged with multiple counts of wire fraud and honest services crimes under federal law. Auburn immediately fired Person and suspended the athletes implicated in the transactions. Person pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two hundred hours of community service and two years of probation. After the criminal case, the NCAA began its infractions and enforcement action against Auburn and at least eleven other universities caught up in the “scandal." After three years of investigation, the NCAA issued its opinion last Friday. Although the tone of the NCAA’s opinion was noticeably more charitable than previous basketball “scandal”-related opinions, the NCAA threw the book at Person through a “show cause” order that made Person unemployable. Head Coach Bruce Pearl, the darling of ESPN and a “made man” in the high-level basketball coaching community, continues to draw a $4 million salary. Even more puzzling was that when Auburn hired Pearl he was under a three-year “show cause” order for Level I violations in 2011 when he was the head coach at Tennessee. Auburn’s hiring of Pearl was unprecedented in college sports because a primary purpose of a show cause order is to make a coach unemployable for its duration. This episode analyzes the Auburn decision and the disparate treatment for “made men” like Pearl and the dispensable underlings like Person and the athletes.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 19:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/9a744979-30a5-4d15-9df5-a1ec3a0e9f8a.mp3"
                length="63152899"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3947</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Revised NCAA Constitution Draft: Say Goodbye to &quot;Athlete Well-Being”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Revised NCAA Constitution Draft: Say Goodbye to &quot;Athlete Well-Being”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>When the NCAA released its initial draft constitution on November 8th, 2021, it hailed the document as a transformative step forward for athletes’ rights and athletes’ physical and mental “well-bei...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">7106241c-1e18-47b8-9c2f-996705e7d387</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/7106241c-1e18-47b8-9c2f-996705e7d387</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[When the NCAA released its initial draft constitution on November 8th, 2021, it hailed the document as a transformative step forward for athletes’ rights and athletes’ physical and mental “well-being.” Now, after “feedback” from in-system stakeholders, the revised draft (released Tuesday, December 7th, 2021) eliminates or waters down athlete-friendly provisions. Specifically, the revised draft (1) eliminated a provision from Article 1 (Principles), section D (Student-Athlete Well-being) that read: “Institutions, conferences, administrators, and coaches shall protect student-athletes from physical and mental abuse, neglect undue harm”; (2) eliminated the classification of Faculty Athletics Representatives as “ombudspersons” to act as athlete advocates on athlete rights issues; and (3) watered down commitments to protect athletes’ commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. This episode analyzes the revised draft with an emphasis on structural governance issues and the NCAA’s/Power 5’s retreat on athletes’ rights.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/7106241c-1e18-47b8-9c2f-996705e7d387.mp3"
                length="57443560"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3590</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Division I “Transformation Committee”: The Power 5 Claim the Iron Throne of College Sports Regulation</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Division I “Transformation Committee”: The Power 5 Claim the Iron Throne of College Sports Regulation</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In late October 2021, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced the creation of a Division I “Transformation Committee.” An October 28, 2021, press release on the NCAA website said the Commi...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">374bbb9a-d770-460a-857e-0a540c8b0b22</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/374bbb9a-d770-460a-857e-0a540c8b0b22</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In late October 2021, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced the creation of a Division I “Transformation Committee.” An October 28, 2021, press release on the NCAA website said the Committee was “charged with making recommendations to the [Division I] board for how to address the Division I’s most significant challenges and more effectively meet the needs of current and future student-athletes. The Committee, co-chaired by Southeastern Conference Commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio Athletics Director Julie Cromer, will consider what it means to be a Division I member and how the division should be organized, what is the best process for making decisions, and how to better meet the needs of and set expectations for Division I student-athletes.” These vague aims and aspirations belie a hostile takeover by the Power 5 of the entire college sports regulatory field. Why the current 24-member Division I Board could not address these issues was unstated and unknown. The Transformation Committee has 21 members, nearly the same size as the existing Board of Directors. A comparison of the membership of the two bodies may provide the answer to that threshold question. The Power 5 holds only 6 of 24 (25%) voting seats on the current Board of Directors. The Power 5 holds 11 of 21 seats (52%) on the new Transformation Committee. The Transformation Committee also differs in another fundamental way: on the existing Board of Directors, university presidents or chancellors hold 20 of the 24 seats (83%). Presidents or chancellors hold only 6 of 21 seats (29%) on the new Transformation Committee. The composition of the Transformation Committee also differs from the current Board of Directors in other material ways, including the prominence of conference commissioners and athletics directors. However, Sankey’s role is the most important feature of the Transformation Committee. Sankey is viewed by many as the most powerful man in college sports. Sankey is the top dog among Power 5 conference commissioners, and the SEC is the top dog in college football. Sankey’s role raises a question fundamental to the regulation of college sports: Will the interests Sankey represents define the future of college sports?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/374bbb9a-d770-460a-857e-0a540c8b0b22.mp3"
                length="56072236"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3505</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>NCAA/Power 5 Propaganda and a Sham Marriage</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>NCAA/Power 5 Propaganda and a Sham Marriage</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On November 19, 2021, a Constitution Committee representative from each of the three NCAA divisions sat for an interview in the NCAA.com Social Series podcast. The Constitution Committee is now in ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">568aad8c-fec5-443b-9cb4-e6c8749beccc</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/568aad8c-fec5-443b-9cb4-e6c8749beccc</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On November 19, 2021, a Constitution Committee representative from each of the three NCAA divisions sat for an interview in the NCAA.com Social Series podcast. The Constitution Committee is now in the public spin phase, and the Social Series episode is a case study in NCAA/Power 5 propaganda. The podcast host and Committee representatives painted a picture of association-wide consensus on the draft constitution even though Division I has yet to address what may be the most important regulatory issues in the history of college sports. What is clear, however, is that the NCAA and Power 5 have negotiated a sham marriage (short of divorce) that give the Power 5 complete autonomy within the NCAA umbrella while the NCAA national office and Divisions II and III receive enough March Madness money to continue the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2021 14:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/568aad8c-fec5-443b-9cb4-e6c8749beccc.mp3"
                length="78992704"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4937</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Five Reasons Why the Power 5 Don’t Leave the NCAA to Form Their Own Association</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Five Reasons Why the Power 5 Don’t Leave the NCAA to Form Their Own Association</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Since the 1970s, the powerful football interests have sought to protect their financial interests under the NCAA umbrella by threatening to leave the Association unless they got their way. Given th...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">36283fe7-a196-4246-a066-d8b6192a6266</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/36283fe7-a196-4246-a066-d8b6192a6266</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Since the 1970s, the powerful football interests have sought to protect their financial interests under the NCAA umbrella by threatening to leave the Association unless they got their way. Given the current and unprecedented weakness of the NCAA and the shift in power from the NCAA national office to the Divisions, why don’t the Power 5 leave the NCAA and start a new association? This episode identifies and discusses five reasons why the Power 5 have strong incentives to stay under the NCAA umbrella.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/36283fe7-a196-4246-a066-d8b6192a6266.mp3"
                length="39989183"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2499</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA Constitution Committee: Preserving the NCAA Administrative State</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA Constitution Committee: Preserving the NCAA Administrative State</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The format of this episode is a bit unusual. When I initially recorded (November 8th), the NCAA had not released its draft constitution. However, before going live with the episode, the NCAA releas...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">9fd28637-5ba4-4605-85fa-cc361827ab33</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/9fd28637-5ba4-4605-85fa-cc361827ab33</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The format of this episode is a bit unusual. When I initially recorded (November 8th), the NCAA had not released its draft constitution. However, before going live with the episode, the NCAA released its draft constitution. My original episode was a discussion of the composition and purpose of the Constitution Committee and recorded with the assumption that the Committee would not release its work product until November 15th. After reading the draft constitution, I decided that my “set up” episode was relevant. I discuss the composition of the Committee and its purpose. I use a September 10th interview that Bob Gates gave to an NCAA podcast as the launchpad for my analysis. This episode is a predicate for an analysis of the draft constitution.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/9fd28637-5ba4-4605-85fa-cc361827ab33.mp3"
                length="47113716"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2945</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Committees, Omertas, and Big-Time Football Power Plays</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Committees, Omertas, and Big-Time Football Power Plays</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA’s vaguely defined “Constitution Committee” is due to announce the terms of its “transformative” overhaul of the NCAA constitution to align NCAA “responsibilities” with NCAA “authorities.” ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">bcca7178-82eb-4835-a09b-312a2080404a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/bcca7178-82eb-4835-a09b-312a2080404a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA’s vaguely defined “Constitution Committee” is due to announce the terms of its “transformative” overhaul of the NCAA constitution to align NCAA “responsibilities” with NCAA “authorities.” According to NCAA Board of Governors member Bob Gates—the committee chair—the NCAA is in an existential battle for “relevance” as a national regulatory authority in college sports. One pathway to national relevance (in addition to the federalization of the NIL marketplace through preemption) is the NCAA infractions and enforcement apparatus. Gates’ alignment theory suggests the importance of the NCAA police state at the national level. There appears to be some internal disagreement on that point. Independent of the NCAA Board of Governors and the Constitutional Committee, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors recently announced the formation of a “Transformation Committee”—with similarly vague objectives. Both committees are comprised of NCAA/Power 5 insiders and adhere to big-time college sports’ code of omerta. The family feud appears to pit the interests of the haves (Power 5) and have nots (lower-level Division I and all of Divisions II and III) under the NCAA umbrella. At the heart of the conflict is the future of the NCAA national office administrative state. By aligning its interests with the direct beneficiaries of March Madness money in Divisions II and III, the NCAA seeks an insurance policy to justify its national office bureaucracy supported solely by the CBS/Turner March Madness contract. The plot thickened on November 2 when Tennessee House member David Kustoff introduced the “NCAA Accountability Act” in Congress, substantially limiting the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement authority and jurisdiction. This episode sets the table to analyze the evolving behind-the-scenes skirmish between the NCAA national office and Power 5 football interests.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2021 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/bcca7178-82eb-4835-a09b-312a2080404a.mp3"
                length="48894640"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3056</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Same Script, New Cast: The NCAA Recycles its Worst NIL Arguments in the House of Representatives</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Same Script, New Cast: The NCAA Recycles its Worst NIL Arguments in the House of Representatives</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On September 30th, 2021, Mark Emmert made his fourth appearance in Congress over twenty months to plead for federal protections and immunities to protect the NCAA from itself. Like the high-powered...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f34cc375-d216-434a-ad6b-3cf9f7de04ff</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f34cc375-d216-434a-ad6b-3cf9f7de04ff</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On September 30th, 2021, Mark Emmert made his fourth appearance in Congress over twenty months to plead for federal protections and immunities to protect the NCAA from itself. Like the high-powered NCAA lobbyists that orchestrated the hearing, Emmert knew no shame in pumping propaganda that should now be irrelevant. In late 2019 and throughout 2020, the NCAA’s built its Senate campaign around obtaining complete antitrust immunity, the nullification of any state law or regulation that overrode NCAA’s amateurism-based compensation limits. The NCAA pitched these extraordinary federal protections and immunities as essential preconditions to the existence of any name, image, and likeness opportunities for athletes. Using decades-old scare tactics, the NCAA predicted that if state NIL laws went into effect on July 1st, 2021, then college sports would be brought to a fatal collapse. With the nascent NIL market taking shape, the NCAA is desperate to slow or reverse market momentum. This episode analyzes the NCAA’s motives in its re-engagement with Congress and discusses the testimony of four witnesses.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f34cc375-d216-434a-ad6b-3cf9f7de04ff.mp3"
                length="58062992"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3629</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA is Back in Congress</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA is Back in Congress</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On September 30th, 2021, the NCAA’s high-powered lobbyists orchestrated yet another Congressional show in the NCAA’s renewed effort to reclaim the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. Last wee...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">43d29cfb-6e69-4021-bf4e-a0ebc167ad90</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/43d29cfb-6e69-4021-bf4e-a0ebc167ad90</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On September 30th, 2021, the NCAA’s high-powered lobbyists orchestrated yet another Congressional show in the NCAA’s renewed effort to reclaim the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. Last week’s hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce was a reprise of the Senate Commerce Committee’s June 9th, 2021, hearing. The June 9th hearing was the NCAA’s last gasp—and failed— attempt to eliminate state name, image, and likeness laws from the college sports regulatory field before the NIL laws went into effect on July 1st. In both hearings, the NCAA appears to be focused primarily on the federal preemption of state laws and executive orders relating to NIL. However, in the House hearing, the NCAA also renewed its request for complete antitrust immunity and a federal declaration that revenue-producing athletes cannot be university employees. The NCAA’s renewal of its Congressional campaign dovetails with the work of the NCAA’s newly formed Constitutional Committee led by Board of Governors member Bob Gates. For the first time over seven hearings and nineteen months, the NCAA’s reliance on high-powered lobbyists to attain college sports regulatory supremacy was finally put on the table. Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA) asked NCAA president Mark Emmert to pledge that he would not dispatch NCAA lobbyists to “sink” a federal bill that is genuinely athlete-friendly. The hearing was titled “A Level Playing Field: College Athletes’ Rights to Their Name, Image, and Likeness,” which channeled the theme of a bill proposed in September 2020 (and re-released in April 2021) titled “The Student-Athlete Level Playing Field Act.” Congressmen Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) and Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO) authored the bill. The NCAA has lauded the Gonzalez bill as a template for federal NIL legislation. Five witnesses testified at the hearing, four of whom supported NCAA objectives. The NCAA’s star witness was Baylor University President Linda Livingstone, who also serves on the Big XII Board of Directors, the NCAA Board of Governors, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, and the NCAA’s new Constitutional Committee. The hearing last week is a peek into the NCAA’s emerging strategy to push yet again for extraordinary federal protections and immunities, which, if granted, will allow the NCAA to curtail the burgeoning NIL market.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/43d29cfb-6e69-4021-bf4e-a0ebc167ad90.mp3"
                length="63880555"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3993</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Climate, Culture, and Consequences</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Climate, Culture, and Consequences</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA’s infractions and enforcement case against NC State could wind up in litigation, mainly since the NCAA has capriciously denied NC State the right of appeal from the Independent Resolution ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">70a7ced0-d691-4a4b-9b29-892ad28813c7</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/70a7ced0-d691-4a4b-9b29-892ad28813c7</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA’s infractions and enforcement case against NC State could wind up in litigation, mainly since the NCAA has capriciously denied NC State the right of appeal from the Independent Resolution Panel’s decision. In that scenario, the climate and culture of the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement staff and processes will be under the microscope. This episode discusses the history of the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement apparatus and the climate and culture developed since the 1950s under Walter Byers’ leadership. NCAA member institutions have ceded to the NCAA national office compete authority for enforcement and infractions work with little oversight. The climate and culture of the infractions and enforcement process and staff are a direct product of national office leadership, particularly the NCAA president(s). Only once in the last seventy years has a member institution boldly and publicly challenged the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement authorities. That challenge began in the 1970s through Jerry Tarkanian’s epic war against the NCAA. Tarkanian’s quest for vindication spanned three decades. It produced one of the most consequential NCAA-related US Supreme Court decisions in history. A 5-4 Court held that the NCAA was not required to provide federal due process protections to those subject to its regulatory authority. Tarkanian is still good law, but that was then; this is now. A challenge to the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement authorities will likely be a much different ball game in the post-Alston world. For this reason, the NC State case can disrupt the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement authorities and the assumptions upon which they are built.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/70a7ced0-d691-4a4b-9b29-892ad28813c7.mp3"
                length="41204612"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2575</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>A Labor Day Shout Out to NCAA Revenue-Producing Athletes (and NC State’s response to the NCAA’s indictment)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>A Labor Day Shout Out to NCAA Revenue-Producing Athletes (and NC State’s response to the NCAA’s indictment)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Happy Labor Day to revenue-producing football and men’s basketball players whose labors line NCAA national office employees’ pockets with gold! However, it appears NCAA fat cats aren’t much in the ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">850d97af-ea16-44f6-aa5c-d60c3f8a2cd3</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/850d97af-ea16-44f6-aa5c-d60c3f8a2cd3</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Happy Labor Day to revenue-producing football and men’s basketball players whose labors line NCAA national office employees’ pockets with gold! However, it appears NCAA fat cats aren’t much in the mood for sending these athletes thank you notes. Instead, as evidenced in the NCAA’s scorched earth tactics in its infractions and enforcement case against NC State, these athletes are “bad actors” and “greedy amateurs.” This episode analyzes NC State’s December 9, 2019, response to the NCAA’s July 9, 2019,  Notice of Allegations. As a preliminary matter, NC State discusses (deferentially) the due process irregularities in this case and identifies legitimate and substantial factual gaps in the record. Of critical importance is the NCAA’s use of its newly acquired “importation” powers through which it adopts as unassailable “facts” assumptions drawn from the criminal case (US v Gatto) in the Southern District of New York.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/850d97af-ea16-44f6-aa5c-d60c3f8a2cd3.mp3"
                length="54636565"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3415</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>United States v Gatto - The “Victim University” Absurdity</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>United States v Gatto - The “Victim University” Absurdity</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA’s infractions and enforcement case against NC State has been presented to an Independent Resolution Panel and is now under review for a final decision. As a predicate for an analysis of th...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f17b1b26-45b1-44ec-bad6-7564bb8b27a1</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f17b1b26-45b1-44ec-bad6-7564bb8b27a1</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA’s infractions and enforcement case against NC State has been presented to an Independent Resolution Panel and is now under review for a final decision. As a predicate for an analysis of that case, this episode explains the context for the NCAA’s case against NC State. In 2017, NC State was implicated in a federal criminal investigation into “corruption” in men’s college basketball. NC State’s recruitment of Dennis Smith Jr. was a primary component (along with allegations involving Louisville and Kansas) of the criminal case against two Adidas representatives and an aspiring athlete-agent. Adidas has a long-term contract with NC State worth over six million dollars per year and is thus an “Adidas school.”. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York alleged that the Adidas defendants funneled forty thousand dollars to an NC State assistant coach earmarked for Smith’s father in a scheme to guarantee Smith’s attendance at NC State. The defendants were indicted on multiple wire fraud counts and, after a lengthy trial, were found guilty by a jury. The prosecution’s case rested on a “Victim University” theory. That is, the defendants defrauded the universities when they offered scholarships—allegedly unbeknownst to the universities—to ineligible players and exposed the universities to the risk of NCAA violations. In formulating the “Victim University” theory, the trial judge essentially imported NCAA amateurism-based rules as the standard of conduct for the defendants. Thus, in a literal sense, the judge made violation of NCAA rules a criminal offense. This theory flies in the face of the realities of the talent acquisition market in high-stakes men’s basketball recruiting. It also offends the NCAA’s principles of “institutional control,” which hold the universities strictly liable and solely responsible for NCAA rules violations by those in their employ or under their control—including shoe and apparel companies. This episode explores the obvious tension between the treatment of universities as “victims” in the criminal context but their treatment as perpetrators in the NCAA infractions and enforcement process. These two views of culpability for NCAA rules violations are irreconcilable and shine a bright light on the impossible position institutions such as NC State face when transitioning from “victim” to “perpetrator.”]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f17b1b26-45b1-44ec-bad6-7564bb8b27a1.mp3"
                length="72256468"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4516</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Curse of NCAA v Tarkanian</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Curse of NCAA v Tarkanian</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On August 3rd, 2021, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced an immediate and substantial restriction on the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP). The Commission on College...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">84f53ee6-8845-43eb-a93b-4c03fbe6cb6b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/84f53ee6-8845-43eb-a93b-4c03fbe6cb6b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On August 3rd, 2021, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced an immediate and substantial restriction on the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP). The Commission on College Basketball (CCB) recommended the IARP to restore integrity to the infractions and enforcement process in high-stakes NCAA investigations. Launched in August of 2019, only six cases have been referred to the IARP, all in men’s basketball, with five of the six resulting from the criminal cases in New York. The IARP includes an independent Complex Case Unit consisting of outside investigators to find facts and inform independent resolution hearing panels. As clearly stated in the CCB’s report, the Complex Case Unit’s very purpose was to offer an investigatory track completely independent of the NCAA national office’s enforcement staff. Under the Board of Directors August 3rd, 2021, directive, the Complex Case Unit must now accept the investigatory work of the NCAA enforcement staff “unless the [complex case] unit can demonstrate a compelling reason why additional investigation is required.” The Board of Directors based its’ rationale for an immediate overhaul of the IARP’s Complex case Unit authorities on “concerns about the delay in the resolution of cases referred to the independent process” and that “much of the delay is the result of efforts by the Complex Case Unit to ‘re-investigate’ cases that the enforcement staff thoroughly investigated.” This change flies in the face of the very purpose of the Complex Case Unit. The five basketball scandal cases were referred to the IARP between May 18th, 2020, and February 19th, 2021. How can there be a delay in a process that has barely gotten underway? And why did the five-year investigation into Baylor’s football program—decided on August 11th, 2021— not raise concerns regarding delay and inefficiency? This episode analyzes these issues in the context of one of the most important and rarely discussed legal decisions in the history of college sports—NCAA v Tarkanian—decided by the US Supreme Court in 1988.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/84f53ee6-8845-43eb-a93b-4c03fbe6cb6b.mp3"
                length="65905162"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4119</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>What the Baylor Decision Says About the NCAA</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>What the Baylor Decision Says About the NCAA</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On August 11th, an NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI) panel issued its decision on Baylor University’s failure to report a series of alleged violent acts against women by Baylor football players. ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">d7ff5569-5e4e-4667-b732-2e4cd7165d5b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/d7ff5569-5e4e-4667-b732-2e4cd7165d5b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On August 11th, an NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI) panel issued its decision on Baylor University’s failure to report a series of alleged violent acts against women by Baylor football players. The COI found no NCAA rules violations despite the institutional acknowledgment of a “colossal operational failure” and universal condemnation of Baylor’s conduct by numerous outside investigatory bodies. Rather than look to provisions of the NCAA constitution that bombastically promote gender equity and safe campus environments, the COI instead tried to hammer Baylor’s misconduct into an NCAA bylaw (Bylaw 16, “Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student-Athletes”) that generally prohibits “extra benefits” such as free car rides, free meals, and complimentary game tickets. The COI attempted to avoid addressing the absurdity of reliance on Bylaw 16 by claiming it was up to the “collective membership” to determine whether that bylaw covered the conduct at issue in the case. The Baylor decision shines a bright light on two crucial elements of the NCAA’s regulatory house of cards: (1) the absence of any NCAA legislation that specifically protects the lofty principles contained in the NCAA constitution; and (2) the actual focus of NCAA legislation on issues that relate almost exclusively to protecting the NCAA’s business model and revenue streams, namely rules that enforce the NCAA’s conceptualization of amateurism. This glaring hypocrisy begs the question of why the NCAA so aggressively promotes and markets for public relations purposes constitutional principles it has no intention of standing behind. This episode analyzes the Baylor decision and offers thoughts on what it says about the NCAA and new-found quest through its Constitutional Committee to “align responsibilities with authorities.”]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2021 14:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/d7ff5569-5e4e-4667-b732-2e4cd7165d5b.mp3"
                length="68477714"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4280</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA’s “limited authorities” Myth</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA’s “limited authorities” Myth</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA constitutional committee has begun its campaign to “align responsibilities with authorities.” Through “independent” Board of Governors member Robert Gates, the NCAA has framed this alignme...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">0394f449-03d0-4977-a117-ec8c15be3eba</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/0394f449-03d0-4977-a117-ec8c15be3eba</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA constitutional committee has begun its campaign to “align responsibilities with authorities.” Through “independent” Board of Governors member Robert Gates, the NCAA has framed this alignment to suggest that the NCAA has too much responsibility and too little authority. The opposite is true. In the last episode, we looked at how little responsibility and accountability the NCAA actually has. This episode examines the NCAA’s audacious claim that it has little authority as well as its covert attempts to expand its powers.  We also explore the basic contours of the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement process, emphasizing its coercive elements. We also look at the infractions/enforcement process through the lens of the Commission on College Basketball’s which recommended in 2018 a “prompt, radical transformation of the NCAA’s investigative and enforcement process.” In 2019, the NCAA quietly attempted to intervene in a criminal case—United States v Gatto— arising from the 2017 college basketball scandal to obtain investigatory “materials” (FBI wiretap transcripts, text messages, emails, correspondence interviews with witnesses) so offensive and unreliable to the court that they were excluded from evidence and placed under seal. The materials were infused with hearsay, gossip, innuendo, and unverifiable allegations. The NCAA intended to use these materials in their infractions and enforcement process to identify, charge, and prosecute “bad actors.” Both the prosecution and the defense opposed the NCAA’s request, and the judge denied it. The NCAA also seeks subpoena power through Senator Jerry Moran’s (R-KS) February 2021 bill—the “Amateur Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2021.” Under Moran’s proposal, the NCAA would have the authority to request subpoenas to compel the production of documents and testimony for use in its enforcement and infractions process. Far from having “little authority,” as the NCAA and Gates claim, the NCAA acts as a rogue administrative state with breathtaking authority and power.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/0394f449-03d0-4977-a117-ec8c15be3eba.mp3"
                length="59987678"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3749</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Unbearable Lightness of NCAA “Responsibilities”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Unbearable Lightness of NCAA “Responsibilities”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On August 11th, 2021, the NCAA Committee on Infractions issued its non-decision in the Baylor case. The COI concluded the central allegations relating to an out-of-control, corrupt football program...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">18e374b6-d17c-4554-9a41-d4633902cc4b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/18e374b6-d17c-4554-9a41-d4633902cc4b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On August 11th, 2021, the NCAA Committee on Infractions issued its non-decision in the Baylor case. The COI concluded the central allegations relating to an out-of-control, corrupt football program and culture were beyond the reach of existing NCAA enforcement jurisdiction. The COI reached the correct conclusion legally, but it begs the question of why the NCAA yet again finds itself defending non-action in a case that screams for prompt, aggressive reprisals. The answer lies in the fundamental disconnect between the NCAA’s claimed values expressed in the NCAA constitution and its persistent refusal to honor them. This tension is the basis for the NCAA’s newfound emphasis on “aligning its responsibilities with its authorities.” This tagline is the NCAA’s new propagandist coup and forms the justification for a constitutional convention tasked to redraw NCAA principles and governance. In fact, the NCAA has very little responsibility and significant, unchecked authority. This episode focuses on how the NCAA has built a legal firewall from any meaningful responsibility and accountability for the lofty principles found in Article 2 of its constitution. The NCAA has cynically commodified and sold these empty promises that have enormous market value to the highest bidder.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/18e374b6-d17c-4554-9a41-d4633902cc4b.mp3"
                length="46448747"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2903</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part III: The Mark Walker Bill)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part III: The Mark Walker Bill)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>As state legislatures in Washington and California began deliberations on name, image, and likeness legislation in late 2018 and early 2019, Congressman Mark Walker (R-NC) devised then introduced o...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">0e3d0720-6ffb-40d6-a278-64a11211615b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/0e3d0720-6ffb-40d6-a278-64a11211615b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As state legislatures in Washington and California began deliberations on name, image, and likeness legislation in late 2018 and early 2019, Congressman Mark Walker (R-NC) devised then introduced on March 14, 2019, a bill in House that would have stripped the NCAA of its tax-exempt status unless it permitted NCAA athletes to be “reasonably compensated” for the commercial use of their NIL. Titled the “Student-Athlete Equity Act,” Walker’s bill prohibited the NCAA from “substantially restricting” athletes’ use of NIL in transactions with third-party contractors. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) signed on as co-sponsor. Seven more congressmen (three Republicans and four Democrats) would later join in. Three of the nine are African American. Importantly, all nine co-sponsors represent(ed) states with substantial Power 5 interests (CA, FL, KY, LA, NC, PA, and TX). While the bill was thin on substance—the operative provision was a mere fifty-five words—its’ group of sponsors posed a material threat to the NCAA’s and Power 5’s burgeoning campaign in the Senate to eliminate external regulatory threats to the big-time college sports business model. Walker’s bill never made it out of committee. Still, it was a substantial contributing factor in pushing the NCAA and Power 5 into an aggressive, multi-pronged quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. The Walker bill was an inflection point in the NCAA’s consequential shift from defense to offense in its audacious and historic regulatory power grab.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/0e3d0720-6ffb-40d6-a278-64a11211615b.mp3"
                length="49962885"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3123</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part II: Early 2019)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part II: Early 2019)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA’s cynical quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation began in early 2019. This episode discusses how the NCAA transitioned from outright hostility to name, image, and likeness ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">127ea26d-4f14-4301-b13f-dadbdaeb18c3</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/127ea26d-4f14-4301-b13f-dadbdaeb18c3</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA’s cynical quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation began in early 2019. This episode discusses how the NCAA transitioned from outright hostility to name, image, and likeness “compensation” to a stealth campaign in Alston, Congress, and public relations to eliminate the athletes’ rights movement in one fell swoop. Beginning with its decision to appeal the Alston trial court’s decision to the 9th Circuit in March 2019, the NCAA laid the foundation for its imperial march towards the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. The material data points for this quest ran along three tracks: (1) legal; (2) congressional (particularly the Senate); and (3) public relations built around claims of a genuine commitment to change NCAA rules to permit NIL “compensation.” On the legal front, these data points are the NCAA’s legal briefs in Alston and its statements at oral argument in the 9th Circuit on March 9th, 2020. The data points in its congressional campaign are four hearings in the Senate in 2020 and five bills—four in the Senate and one in the house. The data points in its public relations campaign are three work products of the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group and manipulation of the press to suggest that voluntary rules changes on NIL were a done deal.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/127ea26d-4f14-4301-b13f-dadbdaeb18c3.mp3"
                length="47773615"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2986</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part I: Prelude to the Perfect Storm of 2019)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Deconstructing the Most Consequential Era in College Sports History (Part I: Prelude to the Perfect Storm of 2019)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode identifies the crucial milestones in the modern era of college sports leading to the 2019 perfect storm. I identify six themes that have developed over the last seventy years that have...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3724dd4c-b6fb-41da-8237-3ca34946ed9a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/3724dd4c-b6fb-41da-8237-3ca34946ed9a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode identifies the crucial milestones in the modern era of college sports leading to the 2019 perfect storm. I identify six themes that have developed over the last seventy years that have come to define the business of big-time college sports: (1) the belief among in-system stakeholders that the NCAA and only the NCAA should be the sole regulatory authority in college sports; (2) the decades-long tension between powerful football interests (now the Power 5) and the NCAA national office; (3) the unprecedented market dominance and political influence of the Power 5 conferences; (4) the propaganda tactics used by the NCAA and Power 5 to manipulate public opinion and decision-makers in Congress, federal courts, and state legislatures to NCAA/Power 5-friendly positions; and, (5) the influence of Myles Brand’s “collegiate model” to justify the amateur-professional dilemma. All these themes defined the events of the perfect storm.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/3724dd4c-b6fb-41da-8237-3ca34946ed9a.mp3"
                length="57568489"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3598</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>NCAA Desperation Escalates</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>NCAA Desperation Escalates</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On Friday, July 30th, the NCAA Board of Governors emerged from seclusion to announce the formation of a “constitutional convention committee” that will propose “dramatic” changes to the NCAA consti...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">7e14c14c-1eea-4319-9829-b58e7dd07e27</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/7e14c14c-1eea-4319-9829-b58e7dd07e27</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On Friday, July 30th, the NCAA Board of Governors emerged from seclusion to announce the formation of a “constitutional convention committee” that will propose “dramatic” changes to the NCAA constitution. A Constitutional Review Committee will redraft the NCAA constitution to usher in a new era in NCAA governance. The Committee will be comprised of 22 members from in-system stakeholders such as university presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors, “independent” members of the NCAA Board of Governors, and students from each division. Buttressed by comments from Board of Governors Chair Jack DeGioia (president of Georgetown University) and “independent” BOG member Robert Gates (former Secretary of Defense and Texas A&M president), the Committee intends to have recommendations in place by November 15th, 2021, with final proposals to be provided to the Board of Governors by December 15th, 2021. In three-and-a-half months, the Committee aims to accomplish what Mark Emmert said just sixteen days ago would take “years.” An obvious question arises from this newfound need for a ground-up restructuring of college sports: how can we trust the same people who created this to correct it? This episode discusses the NCAA’s most recent desperate attempt to remain relevant in the college sports world and uses it to transition into an analysis of the perfect storm (2019-present).]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/7e14c14c-1eea-4319-9829-b58e7dd07e27.mp3"
                length="61834180"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3865</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Integrity of College Sports”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Integrity of College Sports”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Power 5 conference realignment mud fight is escalating. Yesterday, Big 12 conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby came out of hiding to accuse ESPN of conspiring with unnamed accomplices to ruin th...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">20f1d5b5-53cb-404e-a31b-6b7f7f3ead00</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/20f1d5b5-53cb-404e-a31b-6b7f7f3ead00</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Power 5 conference realignment mud fight is escalating. Yesterday, Big 12 conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby came out of hiding to accuse ESPN of conspiring with unnamed accomplices to ruin the Big 12. What happened to the “integrity of college sports”? While Bowlsby rants and ESPN reports on itself, I refocus on perhaps a more important arena: the United States Senate. I lay the foundation for discussing three important legislative proposals originating in the Senate that set the parameters for the next round of hearings. I include an in-depth look at the Athletes’ Bill of Rights proposal offered by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Corey Booker (D-NJ) in December 2020.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/20f1d5b5-53cb-404e-a31b-6b7f7f3ead00.mp3"
                length="43330291"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Was Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby Asleep at the Wheel and Where Does the NCAA Fit into Realignment?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Was Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby Asleep at the Wheel and Where Does the NCAA Fit into Realignment?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode first analyzes some additional issues that I left on the table in the last episode, including how so many crucial in-system stakeholders could have been caught off-guard by the SEC’s c...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">54068a34-a6c2-4f74-a88f-a958f792c8d8</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/54068a34-a6c2-4f74-a88f-a958f792c8d8</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode first analyzes some additional issues that I left on the table in the last episode, including how so many crucial in-system stakeholders could have been caught off-guard by the SEC’s courtship of Texas and Oklahoma. In that regard, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby has said little since the Texas/Oklahoma defections were made public. Why is that? Then I turn to where (and whether) the NCAA fits into a restructured football landscape. The NCAA is in the process of rebranding itself into a kinder, gentler NCAA. But to what purpose? I also discuss the implications in Congress of Power 5 infighting.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/54068a34-a6c2-4f74-a88f-a958f792c8d8.mp3"
                length="75515238"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4720</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Déjà vu All Over Again for Southern Football</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Déjà vu All Over Again for Southern Football</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The rumors are confirmed: Texas and Oklahoma are indeed bolting the Big 12 for the SEC. Is this the end of college sports as we knew them? We can only hope so. What appears to be the beginning wave...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">9c36c6b4-6026-404b-b21c-2d3c5558e5cf</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/9c36c6b4-6026-404b-b21c-2d3c5558e5cf</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The rumors are confirmed: Texas and Oklahoma are indeed bolting the Big 12 for the SEC. Is this the end of college sports as we knew them? We can only hope so. What appears to be the beginning wave of another shake-out in the big-time college football sweepstakes is neither revolutionary nor unforeseeable. Instead, what we are witnessing is perhaps the logical endpoint of an imperial march by SEC football powerhouses through the rest of the South/Southwest territory that began in earnest just after WWII. From the Seven Sinners’ defiance of the NCAA’s “Sanity Code” in 1950, to the formation of the College Football Association in 1977, to the University of Georgia’s and Oklahoma’s landmark Board of Regents lawsuit against the NCAA in 1981, to Autonomy legislation in 2014, and dominance in the College Football Playoff since 2015, Southern Football has pushed brazenly for superiority and market dominance in college football for nearly 70 years. In the process, it has made enemies in other regions and fostered a relationship with the NCAA built as much on mutual suspicion as mutual interests. Now, in the aftermath of the Alston decision and the NCAA’s failure to deliver on its promises of favorable protective legislation from Congress, big-time Southern football is doing what it does best: forcing structural change by brute force. This episode begins an analysis of Southern football’s imperial aspirations and the latest chapter in the 70-year battle between college football’s “haves” and “have nots.” The inevitable game of musical chairs in this iteration of football-driven realignments will have ripple effects for all downstream market participants. What does will this mean for the NCAA, big-time basketball interests, and the rest of college sports? And more immediately, what does this mean for the NCAA’s/Power 5’s campaign for federal protections and immunities in the Senate? This episode frames the issues for a broad-based discussion of how the perfect storm is evolving into the most consequential era in college sports history.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/9c36c6b4-6026-404b-b21c-2d3c5558e5cf.mp3"
                length="61921576"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3870</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Where are the University Presidents and Chancellors?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Where are the University Presidents and Chancellors?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In Mark Emmert’s July 15th “interview” with a “small group” of reporters, he alluded to the possibility that university presidents and chancellors may assert their authority and interests in the re...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">204ec5ec-0b8e-401d-a78b-15ed8f193d3d</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/204ec5ec-0b8e-401d-a78b-15ed8f193d3d</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In Mark Emmert’s July 15th “interview” with a “small group” of reporters, he alluded to the possibility that university presidents and chancellors may assert their authority and interests in the remaking of college sports. Emmert’s discussion implied that university presidents are marginal stakeholders in the business of big-time college sports. In fact, college presidents—and college presidents alone—are responsible for the conduct and control of intercollegiate athletics. The campaign for presidential control of college athletics dates back to the 1920s and the Carnegie Foundation’s 1929 Carnegie Report. Through the work of the Knight Commission in the early 1990s, the concept of presidential control of intercollegiate sports was rekindled and formally woven into the NCAA constitution and governance structure. This episode is a reprise of Episode 3: “Presidents in Control?”]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/204ec5ec-0b8e-401d-a78b-15ed8f193d3d.mp3"
                length="57520841"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3595</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA’s Ministry of Truth Strikes Again: Mark Emmert Flushes Seventy Years of NCAA History Down the Memory Hole</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA’s Ministry of Truth Strikes Again: Mark Emmert Flushes Seventy Years of NCAA History Down the Memory Hole</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In a stunning “interview” with a “small group of reporters” on July 15th, 2021, NCAA president Mark Emmert erased seventy years of NCAA history. He made a case for returning the structure and gover...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">b4d30e26-e544-4a5c-af28-468b476a2679</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/b4d30e26-e544-4a5c-af28-468b476a2679</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In a stunning “interview” with a “small group of reporters” on July 15th, 2021, NCAA president Mark Emmert erased seventy years of NCAA history. He made a case for returning the structure and governance of college sports to the “home rule” era of the early 20th century. Emmert claimed the mantle of reformist and visionary, stating, “[t]he new environment is one that creates some pretty remarkable opportunities for the schools and the Association to rethink and reconsider a lot of the long-standing components of what college sports has been about.” Emmert advocated a decentralized, deregulated structure that delegates NCAA national power to conferences and individual institutions. Emmert said, “[t]his is a real propitious moment to sit back and look at a lot of the core assumptions and say ‘If we were going to build college sports again in 2020 instead of 1920, what would it look like.’ What would we change, what would we expect or want to be in the way we manage it? This is the right time.” Emmert, for the first time in his 11 years presidency, acknowledges that “[w]e have had this tendency to be as homogenous as we can in treating every sport identically, and that doesn’t work. We need to say field hockey is different from football and not get so hung up on everything being the same.” Lost in Emmert’s newly-found religion of reform is that he has been the point person behind a two-year campaign in federal courts and Congress—particularly the Senate—to ensconce into federal law the exclusive authority for the NCAA to impose its uniform, national agreement to fix the cost of athlete labor at the value of an athletics scholarship. Since 2019, the NCAA and Power 5 conferences have asked the Senate to eliminate all external regulatory threats to their business model through an exemption from federal antitrust laws, federal preemption of state laws that conflict with NCAA amateurism-based compensation limits, and a declaration under federal law that athletes cannot be deemed employees of their universities. Emmert’s suggestion that the NCAA has been a reluctant recipient of national regulatory authority fly in the face of the NCAA’s campaign for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. Emmert specifically directed his Senate testimony in four hearings since February of 2020 to defend the NCAA’s role as the sole national regulator of college sports. Moreover, the NCAA premised its position in Alston on the belief that the NCAA—and only the NCAA—should decide what is best for college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/b4d30e26-e544-4a5c-af28-468b476a2679.mp3"
                length="42384494"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2649</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Uniformity” Canard</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Uniformity” Canard</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>As the NCAA’s grip on its monopolistic empire slips away through its arrogance, greed, and incompetence, the quest for “uniformity” in name, image, and likeness legislation is alive and well. The N...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a09b5035-4db8-4ebb-a552-b3fce4c4cfc0</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a09b5035-4db8-4ebb-a552-b3fce4c4cfc0</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As the NCAA’s grip on its monopolistic empire slips away through its arrogance, greed, and incompetence, the quest for “uniformity” in name, image, and likeness legislation is alive and well. The NCAA, Power 5, state legislatures, governors, individual NCAA institutions, and the Uniform Law Commission cling to the myth that material non-uniformity exists in the evolving NIL regulatory marketplace. In the federal legislative arena, the NCAA and Power 5 use uniformity as the basis for their campaign for a single, national, “uniform” standard for NIL “compensation.” In this context, the use of “uniformity” is nothing more than a seductive veneer for federal preemption of all state, institutional, or private commission NIL regulations that threaten the NCAA's monopolistic control over amateurism-based compensation limits. This use of “uniformity” has little to do with consistency on substantive NIL rights. Instead, it is a pretext for the elimination of all other legislative external regulators of college sports. States, member institutions, and the ULC have endeavored in good faith to offer bona fide, substantive NIL opportunities for athletes. Contrary to portrayals of these efforts as resulting in an inconsistent “patchwork” or “hodgepodge” of conflicting NIL rules, there is striking similarity among these proposals. These similarities are largely built around amateurism-based limitations on NIL activity. These limitations align with the NCAA/Power 5’s “guardrails” and “consensus principles” that defined the NIL debate from the very beginning in early 2019. In this episode, I use as an example of these dynamics the recently adopted ULC “Uniform College Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness Act.” Ironically, despite the NCAA’s waning influence in college sports, the very principles upon which its business model is predicated have been preserved in laws and regulations ostensibly designed to move away from NCAA amateurism-based restrictions. In attempting to strike a balance between moving athletes’ rights forward and preserving the “integrity of college sports” (insistence on framing NIL regulation around “amateurism”, the “collegiate model”, the “student-athlete”, and the micro-regulation of “bad actors”) have external regulators tilted that balance in favor of NCAA/Power 5 status quo commercial interests?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a09b5035-4db8-4ebb-a552-b3fce4c4cfc0.mp3"
                length="64427199"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4027</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Perfect Storm Is Still Overhead</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Perfect Storm Is Still Overhead</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, I frame the context for the period 2019 – present, which may be the most consequential era in college sports history. I do a summary of crucial milestones in the modern era of coll...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">495df2b0-77d9-425b-9dad-ae7bb66e820a</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/495df2b0-77d9-425b-9dad-ae7bb66e820a</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, I frame the context for the period 2019 – present, which may be the most consequential era in college sports history. I do a summary of crucial milestones in the modern era of college sports leading up to 2019. I identify six themes that have developed over the last seventy years that have come to define the business of big-time college sports: (1) the belief among in-system stakeholders that the NCAA and only the NCAA should be the sole regulatory authority in college sports; (2) the decades long tension between powerful football interests (now the Power 5) and the NCAA national office; (3) the unprecedented market dominance and political influence of the Power 5 conferences; (4) the propaganda tactics used by the NCAA and Power 5 to manipulate public opinion and decision-makers in Congress, federal courts, and state legislatures to NCAA/Power 5-friendly positions; and, (5) the influence of Myles Brand’s “collegiate model” to justify the amateur-professional dilemma. All these themes will influence the next round of Senate hearings after the August recess in what may be the final phase of the perfect storm.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/495df2b0-77d9-425b-9dad-ae7bb66e820a.mp3"
                length="57568489"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3598</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Hypocrisies, Competitive Advantages, and “Bad Actors”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Hypocrisies, Competitive Advantages, and “Bad Actors”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, I set the table to analyze the perfect storm from May 2019 to the present. I return to one of the most fundamental questions in higher education: why are universities in the busine...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">688548df-0abd-4b88-b0ae-922f33552580</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/688548df-0abd-4b88-b0ae-922f33552580</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, I set the table to analyze the perfect storm from May 2019 to the present. I return to one of the most fundamental questions in higher education: why are universities in the business of college sports? I frame the response to this question around the “amateur-professional dilemma” defined by sports historian Ronald Smith in his 1988 book Sports and Freedom: The Rise of Big-Time College Sports. I then turn to two crucial false narratives that have influenced the debate over name, image, and likeness: (1) “competitive balance” in college sports; and (2) the portrayal of athletes, agents, boosters, and third-party contractors as “bad actors.” The battle to preserve or avoid losing a “competitive advantage” in the talent acquisition market has reached a fever pitch in the NIL debate.  State legislatures and governors in Power 5 states view this issue as an emergency that requires immediate action. At the same time, big-time college sports stakeholder-beneficiaries have doubled down on their characterization of all external actors in the NIL marketplace as “bad actors.” Decision-makers use this theme to impose unnecessary restrictions on NIL activity. These restrictions may have a disproportionately negative impact on black revenue-producing athletes.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/688548df-0abd-4b88-b0ae-922f33552580.mp3"
                length="63242745"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3953</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Are Power 5 Conferences Prepping for New and Improved Senate Campaign?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Are Power 5 Conferences Prepping for New and Improved Senate Campaign?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>With the Senate in recess until September, it is safe to assume that the Power 5 are reframing their strategy in Congress. This episode looks back on how the Power 5 planned to pursue and disguise ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">be6411b1-c821-41a0-beb5-b318e1bd9257</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/be6411b1-c821-41a0-beb5-b318e1bd9257</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[With the Senate in recess until September, it is safe to assume that the Power 5 are reframing their strategy in Congress. This episode looks back on how the Power 5 planned to pursue and disguise their interests in the Senate in late 2019 and into 2020. Through secret discussions in December of 2019, Power 5 commissioners, president, and chancellors orchestrated a congressional influence campaign independent of the NCAA national office and Mark Emmert. In documents memorializing their stealth campaign, the Power 5 laid the framework for asserting their interests in the Senate under the NCAA banner. The execution of their plan was a fiasco and exposed the lack of leadership both within the NCAA national office and the Power 5 conference commissioners’ offices. The Power 5 stressed  the appearance of unity among all in-system stakeholders, particularly between the Power 5 and NCAA. The NCAA’s/Power 5’s failure to achieve antitrust immunity, preemption of state laws, or the non-employee status of athletes has undermined BigAmateurism’s credibility in Congress and in public opinion. How will the Power 5 retool its strategy in Congress? The Senate Commerce Committee will likely decide the future of college sports in the next congressional session. Expect the Power 5 to lead the charge to reassert their interests and protect their revenue streams.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2021 01:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/be6411b1-c821-41a0-beb5-b318e1bd9257.mp3"
                length="69367058"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4335</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Independence Day</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Independence Day</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode offers some thoughts on freedom and liberty one year after perhaps the most challenging Independence Day in recent American history. I reflect on my blog post from last year and discus...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">7574ad13-3e4b-42ba-9d31-ef2423769a92</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/7574ad13-3e4b-42ba-9d31-ef2423769a92</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode offers some thoughts on freedom and liberty one year after perhaps the most challenging Independence Day in recent American history. I reflect on my blog post from last year and discuss what has changed in revenue-producing athletes’ quest for equal treatment under the law. Athletes have made historic inroads legally and legislatively. Will this progress result in a meaningful and lasting change in how America views athletes’ rights? I discuss the power of freedom of thought and the many ways that the NCAA and its in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries manipulate public opinion to their advantage. In the wake of the Alston decision and fortuitous name, image, and likeness opportunities, the NCAA and Power 5 appear to be employing their propaganda assets for another run at Congress to achieve federal protections and immunities that may threaten the gains of this historic June/July.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 03:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/7574ad13-3e4b-42ba-9d31-ef2423769a92.mp3"
                length="53643434"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3353</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Mark Emmert Saves the Day!</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Mark Emmert Saves the Day!</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On June 30th at 4:20 PM, the NCAA issued a press release announcing that NCAA athletes nationwide would be allowed to make money from their name, image, and likeness. While presented as an NCAA Div...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1f04d23c-aaee-4e3e-acde-52b4fc835826</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/1f04d23c-aaee-4e3e-acde-52b4fc835826</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On June 30th at 4:20 PM, the NCAA issued a press release announcing that NCAA athletes nationwide would be allowed to make money from their name, image, and likeness. While presented as an NCAA Division I Board of Director’s action, Emmert was the featured spokesman. Emmert said, “This is an important day for college athletes since they all are now able to take advantage of name, image, and likeness opportunities.” This “important day” for college athletes arrived despite Emmert, not because of him. The press release suggested NCAA unanimity on its “interim” action. This episode analyzes the NCAA statement and the dysfunctional, incestuous NCAA governance structure that is designed to protect the financial and institutional interests of the Power 5 conferences and the NCAA national office.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2021 22:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/1f04d23c-aaee-4e3e-acde-52b4fc835826.mp3"
                length="55404714"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3463</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA’s Rapidly Diminishing Relevance</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA’s Rapidly Diminishing Relevance</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>As the NCAA picks up the pieces of its failed Congressional and legal campaign to achieve the Iron Throne of college sports regulation, Division I legislative bodies scramble to offer “guidance” on...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">95b7de01-fc28-476b-8947-1885b83d001e</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/95b7de01-fc28-476b-8947-1885b83d001e</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As the NCAA picks up the pieces of its failed Congressional and legal campaign to achieve the Iron Throne of college sports regulation, Division I legislative bodies scramble to offer “guidance” on name, image, and likeness compensation. The NCAA issued a press release on Monday, June 28th, in which it transferred to individual member institutions control over the application and enforcement of the principle of amateurism in the context of NIL. The NCAA has essentially abandoned its central purpose in college sports regulation: enforcing its collusive national cap on the cost of revenue-producing athlete labor. The NCAA has set the clock back to the first half of the 20th century when college sports was governed through “home rule.” During the “home rule” era, individual schools (and some conferences) defined, applied, and regulated principles of amateurism. The NCAA’s return to home rule is an act of desperation to buy time in the face of its inaction and incompetence on NIL. The NCAA hopes that its self-inflicted chaos will give new energy to protective federal legislation. The NCAA is running out of options, time, and, most importantly, credibility.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/95b7de01-fc28-476b-8947-1885b83d001e.mp3"
                length="60896280"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3806</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>true</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>true</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>House v NCAA: A New Threat to the NCAA?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>House v NCAA: A New Threat to the NCAA?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On June 24th, 2021, just three days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Alston, federal district court judge Claudia Wilken issued an opinion denying the NCAA’s motion to dismiss a ne...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3ac7725a-361e-4b04-b62b-c33b37f2cdcf</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/3ac7725a-361e-4b04-b62b-c33b37f2cdcf</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On June 24th, 2021, just three days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Alston, federal district court judge Claudia Wilken issued an opinion denying the NCAA’s motion to dismiss a new class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by athletes renewing challenges to the NCAA’s amateurism-based compensation limits on name, image, and likeness. Wilken, who presided over O’Bannon and Alston, adopted a market definition in the rule of reason antitrust analysis that may be more deferential to athletes’ market interests than was the case in prior antitrust cases, which focused primarily on what is best for consumers. This theory was inspired by 9th Circuit Judge Milan Smith’s concurring opinion in Alston. Smith reasoned that subordinating athletes’ interests as laborers to consumers’ interests and preferences undermined the very purpose of antitrust laws and left athletes subject to the whims of consumers. At oral argument on Alston in the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Barrett raised this “cross-market” issue. In its’ Alston opinion, the Supreme Court suggested this new market framing might be appropriate but declined to analyze or apply it since the parties did not raise the issue. Moreover, in House, the athletes seek substantial money damages in addition to injunctive relief. Under federal antitrust laws, any award of damages is automatically tripled. How will the NCAA respond to this new threat?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/3ac7725a-361e-4b04-b62b-c33b37f2cdcf.mp3"
                length="52807516"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3300</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>An Organized Lie is More Powerful Than a Disorganized Truth: More on the Alston Decision</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>An Organized Lie is More Powerful Than a Disorganized Truth: More on the Alston Decision</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode expands on my initial reaction to the Supreme Court’s Alston decision on June 21st. I reflect on the contributions of former Duke basketball player and athletes’ rights advocate Dick D...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">6bc04b80-d7ef-4fac-aec4-d26bcd3e859c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/6bc04b80-d7ef-4fac-aec4-d26bcd3e859c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode expands on my initial reaction to the Supreme Court’s Alston decision on June 21st. I reflect on the contributions of former Duke basketball player and athletes’ rights advocate Dick Devenzio (1949 – 2001), who was influential in my thinking on big-time college sports. I also discuss the tepid reaction to the Alston decision of institutional stakeholder-beneficiaries such as the NCAA Board of Governors, Power 5 presidents and chancellors, Power 5 conference commissioners, athletics directors, coaches, and Republican Senators who have been proxies for NCAA/Power 5 interests. The silence in many quarters is deafening. Will it be business as usual, and a double down on the NCAA/Power 5 organized lies in the wake of an epic failure of leadership in college sports? Or we will finally see a sober reckoning that leads in-system stakeholders to demand change—perhaps including the dissolution of the NCAA national office and a new relationship between institutional stakeholders and the athletes whose labors underwrite the entire college sports marketplace?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/6bc04b80-d7ef-4fac-aec4-d26bcd3e859c.mp3"
                length="56240214"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3515</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>US Supreme Court to NCAA: You Are Not Above the Law</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>US Supreme Court to NCAA: You Are Not Above the Law</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This morning, the US Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated ruling in the Alston case. The Court rejected the NCAA’s claim for antitrust immunity. It held that any challenge to NCAA compensation...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3439ca36-a13a-4eaa-b98e-27bc10be52b2</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/3439ca36-a13a-4eaa-b98e-27bc10be52b2</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This morning, the US Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated ruling in the Alston case. The Court rejected the NCAA’s claim for antitrust immunity. It held that any challenge to NCAA compensation limits must be thoroughly vetted through the fact-intensive rule of reason antitrust analysis. The Court upheld the district court’s permission for education-related benefits for athletes that exceed the cost of the existing athletics scholarship. The Court also put to rest for good the NCAA’s 40-year reliance on dicta from the 1984 Board of Regents decision. The NCAA has clung to those off-hand judicial musings on amateurism in every legal challenge to its amateurism-based compensation limits. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion that addressed at the values level the weakness in the NCAA’s case may be a game-changer in how Congress and the American public view the NCAA’s propaganda on “amateurism”, the “collegiate model,” and the “student-athlete.” This episode is a raw (unedited) initial take on the Court’s opinion and its likely impact on the current debate on athletes’ rights. I will do follow-up episodes that dive deeper into the Court’s analysis.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/3439ca36-a13a-4eaa-b98e-27bc10be52b2.mp3"
                length="50535071"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3158</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Mark Emmert Channels Al Haig: “I am in Control Here”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Mark Emmert Channels Al Haig: “I am in Control Here”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Following an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and the vice-president’s (George HW Bush) unavailability, Reagan’s Secretary of State, Al Haig, boldly declared in a press conf...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">0702f4b8-0f1c-493b-9cbd-ed431b6170ec</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/0702f4b8-0f1c-493b-9cbd-ed431b6170ec</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Following an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and the vice-president’s (George HW Bush) unavailability, Reagan’s Secretary of State, Al Haig, boldly declared in a press conference, “I am in control here in the White House.” Lost on Haig—never short on ego—was that the House Speaker and the Senate President pro tem outranked him in the constitutional chain of command. Following Haig’s example, NCAA President Mark Emmert declared in a June 18th letter to all 1,100 NCAA member institutions that he was in control of both the NCAA executive and legislative processes, turning the NCAA Constitution on its head. Emmert boldly stated that if “NCAA rules changes are not in place by July, please know that I will work with our governance bodies to develop temporary policies that assure student-athletes that they will not become trapped in such circumstances and that all will have NIL opportunities. I have directed my staff to create proposals by the end of the week.” As with Myles Brand before him, Emmert has steadfastly denied that he or the office of NCAA president has any independent authorities that would permit unilateral presidential action. Now, after losing control of the preemption narrative in the Senate, the NCAA national office has pivoted to dictatorial edicts only twelve days before the Y2k-like July 1st deadline. Will the six state laws set to go into effect on July 1st bring the college sports world to an immediate and fatal collapse? Stay tuned.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/0702f4b8-0f1c-493b-9cbd-ed431b6170ec.mp3"
                length="113694684"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4737</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Roger Wicker (R-MS) Leads Boycott of Athlete Hearing</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Roger Wicker (R-MS) Leads Boycott of Athlete Hearing</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On June 17th, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on name image and likeness and athletes’ rights. The Committee heard from four witnesses, all African American:
1. Martin McNair, whose s...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">dc4aaafa-3f20-4a51-905c-a1ce199c5f2e</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/dc4aaafa-3f20-4a51-905c-a1ce199c5f2e</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On June 17th, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on name image and likeness and athletes’ rights. The Committee heard from four witnesses, all African American:
1. Martin McNair, whose son Jordan died in 2018 from heatstroke after a summer conditioning session;
2. Christina Chenault, a former UCLA track star;
3. Sari Cureton, a former Georgetown University women’s basketball player; and,
4. Kiara Brown, a current track and field athlete at Vanderbilt University.

All four witnesses support an athletes’ bill of rights that would require, among other things, essential health and safety protections for athletes. This hearing was the first among six Senate hearings since February 2020 (ostensibly devoted NIL “compensation”) to include athletes themselves. Of the ten Senators who participated in the hearing, nine were Democrats. Jerry Moran, a Republican from Kansas, was the only Republican at the hearing. Moran departed the hearing room soon after he asked a couple of questions. At an NCAA-friendly hearing just the week before, on June 9th, fourteen Senators participated. Eight were Republican. The absence of Republican participation amounted to a boycott of the hearing. Roger Wicker (R-MS), along with Moran, has been leading a last-ditch NCAA/Power 5/Republican charge to nullify the state NIL laws set to go into effect on July 1st, objected to the “haste” with which the hearing came about. Wicker and his allies, who controlled the Committee and the witness lists through the first four Senate hearings in 2020, failed to hold a hearing dedicated to athletes’ views on NIL or any of the athletes’ rights issues that arose through the NIL debate. Wicker’s boycott of the June 17th hearing is further evidence of Senate Republicans’ indifference to the rights, well-being, and opinions of athletes who disagree with the NCAA/Power 5 party-line. After the hearing, Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) told the media that there would not be a bill coming out of the Commerce Committee before July 1st. What will the NCAA/Power 5 do now?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/dc4aaafa-3f20-4a51-905c-a1ce199c5f2e.mp3"
                length="108914310"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4538</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>More on Preemption: Will the Senate Grant the NCAA Sovereign State Status?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>More on Preemption: Will the Senate Grant the NCAA Sovereign State Status?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The Senate Commerce Committee is considering NCAA-protective legislation that would wipe from the books every proposed state name, image, and likeness law. The power of federal preemption—the remov...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a09fde73-c5fd-474c-bf0e-76b7fa729da4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a09fde73-c5fd-474c-bf0e-76b7fa729da4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The Senate Commerce Committee is considering NCAA-protective legislation that would wipe from the books every proposed state name, image, and likeness law. The power of federal preemption—the removal of states from a regulatory field—is the vehicle through which the NCAA seeks this goal. This episode explores the nature and purpose of federal preemption and how the NCAA’s claimed justification for nullification of state NIL laws compares to the federal government’s historical use of that power. I discuss the genesis of the NCAA’s campaign for this exceptional federal power. NCAA-friendly legislation proposed by Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Roger Moran (R-KS) (both of whom serve on the Commerce Committee) contain sweeping preemption provisions that go far beyond NIL. Wicker and Moran have been instrumental in pursuing the NCAA’s agenda to claim the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. The Commerce Committee appears to have bought into the NCAA’s manufactured sense of urgency for immediate Congressional action before five state NIL laws become operational on July 1st. Yet, in the debate over NIL “compensation” for athletes, Congress has not analyzed whether there is a legitimate federal interest at stake that would warrant Congress’s use of its extraordinary Article VI powers.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a09fde73-c5fd-474c-bf0e-76b7fa729da4.mp3"
                length="102311886"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4263</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Preemption Fever</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Preemption Fever</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Important Note(s) and Episode Description: On June 9th, 2021, the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings titled “NCAA Athlete NIL Rights.” I have an extended intro. (approx. 7 minutes long) that c...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f3dc745d-bed1-495c-93c1-5cf368a94ca6</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f3dc745d-bed1-495c-93c1-5cf368a94ca6</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Important Note(s) and Episode Description: On June 9th, 2021, the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings titled “NCAA Athlete NIL Rights.” I have an extended intro. (approx. 7 minutes long) that captures highlights of this intriguing hearing. I analyze these clips throughout the episode. Additionally, I have an addendum at the end of the episode that addresses an upcoming hearing in Commerce on June 17th that I learned about today (June 11th) just as I was about to hit the “publish” button. This episode was initially recorded on June 10th—the day after the hearing—and edited on June 11th.

The NCAA and Power 5 have launched an all-out assault on the Senate Commerce Committee in a desperate attempt to get some legislative relief from the upcoming wave of state name, image, and likeness laws set to go into effect on July 1st. The NCAA and Power 5 have narrowed their wish list to federal preemption of state NIL laws. This episode analyzes the hearing and its likely consequences. Buckle up for the next three weeks because it’s going to be a wild ride in the volatile world of the business of big-time college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f3dc745d-bed1-495c-93c1-5cf368a94ca6.mp3"
                length="79601207"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4975</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Current Events Chaos</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Current Events Chaos</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>A series of seemingly random events have played out over the last six weeks that may signal the NCAA’s and Power 5’s short-term strategies to protect and pursue their quest for the Iron Throne of c...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2dfb794b-a5a0-4850-8437-e9f511d7657f</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/2dfb794b-a5a0-4850-8437-e9f511d7657f</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[A series of seemingly random events have played out over the last six weeks that may signal the NCAA’s and Power 5’s short-term strategies to protect and pursue their quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. After the Alston case was formally submitted to the Supreme Court for decision after the March 31st oral argument, the NCAA, Power 5, and their allies made some intriguing moves. From the reintroduction of the Gonzalez-Cleaver name, image, and likeness bill on April 26th to significant departures from the NCAA national office to the NCAA Board of Governors’ unanimous extension of NCAA president Mark Emmert’s contract, to the introduction of a bill in the Senate that would make revenue-producing athletes employees of their universities under federal labor laws, and much more, the last six weeks have been full of surprises. This episode analyzes these events and what they may mean for the future of college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 13:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/2dfb794b-a5a0-4850-8437-e9f511d7657f.mp3"
                length="72539787"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4534</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part VII): 2014 - Power 5 “Autonomy” Unmasks NCAA as Puppet for Power 5 Interests</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part VII): 2014 - Power 5 “Autonomy” Unmasks NCAA as Puppet for Power 5 Interests</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>On July 9th, 2014, NCAA president Mark Emmert testified in the Senate Commerce Committee to unveil “reforms” in the structure of Division I as well as a laundry list of “benefits” for college athle...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f1241276-bfad-4856-ad49-c0243fc411a4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f1241276-bfad-4856-ad49-c0243fc411a4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[On July 9th, 2014, NCAA president Mark Emmert testified in the Senate Commerce Committee to unveil “reforms” in the structure of Division I as well as a laundry list of “benefits” for college athletes. Emmert’s testimony suggested that these “historic” changes were his own and reflected the preferences of the full NCAA membership association-wide and also Division I-wide. Yet behind the scenes since November of 2013, the Power 5 conferences—driven by football interests—had demanded these changes under threats to leave the NCAA unless they were granted for the sole benefit of the Power 5. In a confidential memorandum dated November 25, 2013, the Power 5—through the president of the University of Florida and the chancellor of the University of Nebraska—laid out an audacious power grab that would create an independent Power 5 association under the NCAA umbrella. In May 2014, two months after a regional labor relations board found that Northwestern University football players met the definition of “employee” under federal law, Power 5 interests went into full panic mode and Pac-12 presidents sent other Power conference presidents a letter demanding immediate action on an independent legislative and governance classification for the Power 5 that would permit these conferences to get ahead of the wave of revenue-producing athlete-friendly decisions coming from external regulators that threatened to “either do away with college athletics entirely or professionalize them to such an extent as to have the same result.” This pressure from Power 5 interests to steamroll the NCAA into submission on these issues accelerated with the O’Bannon trial (June 9th – 27th, 2014) and the beginning of the Alston suit in earnest (June/July 2014). With the August 2014 NCAA annual legislative meeting looming, the Power 5 pressed Emmert into service to make the case in the Senate for what became the “Autonomy” classification for the Power 5. Emmert’s testimony concealed the true origin of these changes. No Power 5 conference commissioner or Power 5 president/chancellor testified. On August 6th, 2014 at the annual NCAA legislative meeting, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors voted 16-2 to grant the Power 5 unprecedented authority to pursue their commercial interests independent of the rest of the Association while remaining under the NCAA umbrella.

Note: The intro montage for this episode is longer than most (approx. 4 minutes). Each clip comes from the July 9th, 2014 Senate Commerce hearing. The speakers (in chronological order) are:
1. William Bradshaw (former athletics director at Temple University, representative of athletics directors’ interests, and NCAA advocate);
2. Mark Emmert (NCAA president) – Emmert lays out the contours of new “benefits” for athletes and makes no mention of Power 5’s behind the scenes pressure;
3. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) – reinforcing the theme that the changes are Emmert’s/NCAA’s; Coats is NCAA/Power 5 advocate;
4. Emmert on importance of big-time football and men’s basketball revenue to the BigAmateurism business model; channels Myles Brand’s “collegiate model” requiring the diversion of wealth from revenue-producing athletes to non-revenue athletes to increase “participation opportunities;”
5. Coats disingenuously making the case that proposed changes are necessary to protect Title IX and non-revenue interests;
6. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) – takes Emmert to task on transparency and his role as a puppet for Power 5 commercial interests;
7. Taylor Branch (civil rights historian) – observes the irony of looking to Power 5 as agents of change for the benefit of revenue-producing athletes.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 21:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f1241276-bfad-4856-ad49-c0243fc411a4.mp3"
                length="93544325"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>5847</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part VI): 2014 - The “Student-Athlete” Gets its Day in Court</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part VI): 2014 - The “Student-Athlete” Gets its Day in Court</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>2014 was an important year in the evolution of the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and the institutional interests that benefit from athlete labor. A rapid-fire series of events pla...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">18d3f017-336b-472b-9613-bfcbd16f974b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/18d3f017-336b-472b-9613-bfcbd16f974b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[2014 was an important year in the evolution of the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and the institutional interests that benefit from athlete labor. A rapid-fire series of events placed the NCAA national office and Power 5 in a state of panic because their exploitative business model was under direct assault. From an attempt by Northwestern football players to unionize, to the trial in the O’Bannon case, to another Power 5 shakedown of the NCAA on governance authority, to the NCAA’s retention of a high-powered Washington DC lobbying firm, to a Senate hearing in which NCAA president Mark Emmert offered Power 5 threats as evidence of NCAA magnanimity towards athletes, to the formal adoption of “Autonomy” status for Power 5 conferences, to Judge Wilken’s ruling in O’Bannon, 2014 was a year for the college sports history books. This episode provides an overview of this consequential year and an in-depth evaluation of the Northwestern football team’s quest to unionize. In this quest, the football players had to establish as a threshold matter that they were employees of Northwestern University. Relying primarily on evidence provided by Northwestern itself, a regional labor board readily determined that these football players were indeed employees. The ruling sent the NCAA, Power 5, and their army of loyalists into war mode because if revenue-producing athletes are acknowledged as employees, the entire Big Amateurism business model collapses. If the athletics scholarship is actually pay for play converting athletes into employees, then “amateurism” and the “collegiate model” have no meaning. The Northwestern case provides an objective glimpse into the truth of the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and the institutional stakeholder-beneficiaries.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2021 13:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/18d3f017-336b-472b-9613-bfcbd16f974b.mp3"
                length="118598526"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4941</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part V): 2006 – 2014: An Antitrust Litigation Trilogy</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part V): 2006 – 2014: An Antitrust Litigation Trilogy</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The ink was barely dry on Myles Brand’s 2006 “collegiate model” speech when a group of revenue-producing athletes filed a federal antitrust suit—White v NCAA—in California challenging the NCAA’s at...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f1263a71-db9d-46f0-bf9a-bcce4c17b044</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f1263a71-db9d-46f0-bf9a-bcce4c17b044</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The ink was barely dry on Myles Brand’s 2006 “collegiate model” speech when a group of revenue-producing athletes filed a federal antitrust suit—White v NCAA—in California challenging the NCAA’s athletics scholarship cap that was set below the full cost of attending college. Despite broad-based in-system stakeholder and public support for an additional, modest stipend (typically between $1,500 - $4,000 per year) designed to cover the incidental costs of attending college, the NCAA launched a scorched earth litigation campaign against the athletes. The NCAA contended that these modest stipends, which were part of the athletics scholarship between 1956 – 1975, now amounted to “pay for play.” The White case settled in 2008, and the NCAA preserved its scholarship cap set below the full cost of attendance. In 2009, another group of athletes filed an antitrust suit in California—O’Bannon v NCAA—claiming that the NCAA’s amateurism-based compensation prohibitions on name, image, and likeness violate federal antitrust laws. After nearly a decade of litigation that cost over $150 million, the athletes achieved the modest cost of attendance stipends, but no more. In 2014, in Alston v NCAA, a separate group of athletes challenged all NCAA amateurism-based compensation limits under federal antitrust laws. The remedy crafted by the district court was limited to a small set of permissive education-related benefits, none of which has been provided by the Power 5 conference schools who have control over them. The NCAA and Power 5 appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit and then the US Supreme Court, where they claimed absolute antitrust immunity. The Supreme Court will rule in Alston by the end of June. These antitrust suits fundamentally changed the scope and nature of external regulatory threats to BigAmateurism’s business model. During this period, the NCAA and the emerging Power 5 joined forces in a litigation strategy to seek a judicially created antitrust immunity. The joint NCAA/Power 5 attack on athlete interests formed the beginning of Perfect Storm. The NCAA/Power 5 amassed their extraordinary market and political might to launch a joint judicial/Congressional campaign to eliminate all external regulators and the athletes’ rights movement itself.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 13:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f1263a71-db9d-46f0-bf9a-bcce4c17b044.mp3"
                length="87592744"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3649</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part IV): The “Collegiate Model” cont.</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part IV): The “Collegiate Model” cont.</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>After the 2003 hearings in the House and Senate that raised antitrust concerns relating to big-time football’s monopoly over post-season bowl money, pressure mounted for the NCAA and big-time footb...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1604675f-db42-4889-bbc1-29c3cee25560</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/1604675f-db42-4889-bbc1-29c3cee25560</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[After the 2003 hearings in the House and Senate that raised antitrust concerns relating to big-time football’s monopoly over post-season bowl money, pressure mounted for the NCAA and big-time football interests to justify their market behavior. In his 2004 state of the association speech, Myles Brand debuts the collegiate model in broad strokes to respond to criticism from external regulators. At the same time, Congress investigated the NCAA’s infractions and enforcement process as inconsistent with principles of due process and fundamental fairness. In December 2005, Congress held another hearing on the BCS bowl structure that was obedient to big-time football interests. That hearing demonstrated the potential political might of the Power 5 (independent of the NCAA). It previewed the aggregated post-conference realignment power and influence of big-time football in congressional decision-making in 2020-2021. In his January 2006 state of the association speech, Myles Brand offered a refined and specific explication of the collegiate model, emphasizing the underlying financial structure of big-time college sports. Under Brand’s provocative formulation of the collegiate model, universities must maximize revenue from football and men’s basketball to enhance “participation opportunities” for non-revenue sports and athletes. Brand argues that “massive redistribution” of revenues is an essential part of university finance and that athletics departments operate no differently than the rest of the university. This is a fundamental departure from Brand’s 2001 speech at the National Press Club when—in his capacity as president of Indiana University—he proclaimed that universities had an obligation to reduce revenues from football and men’s basketball to align those professionalized products with the values of higher education. In his 2006 speech, Brand boldly stated that “amateur defines the participant, not the enterprise.” A month later, a group of athletes sued the NCAA, claiming its scholarship cap below the full cost of attending college violated federal antitrust laws. That suit—White v NCAA—was the first in a trilogy of California cases (followed by O’Bannon and Alston) that challenged NCAA compensation limits as applied to athletes and added federal courts to the list of potential external regulators of college sports. On October 2, 2006, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman sent the NCAA a detailed letter and request for information. The Committee challenged the NCAA’s tax-exempt status because of its professionalized football and men’s basketball. On October 30, 2006, Brand appeared again at the National Press Club to make a speech that responds to the mounting pressure from external regulators. The events of 2004-2006 mark the initial contours of the NCAA’s and Power 5’s strategy to eliminate all external regulators. That strategy came to fruition in 2019 as state legislatures became external threats with California’s passage of the Fair Pay to Play Act on name, image, and likeness compensation. Under the guise of promoting NIL “compensation” for athletes, the NCAA/Power 5 launched their audacious campaign in the Senate and in Alston to eliminate in one fell swoop all external threats to their financial empire.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2021 14:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/1604675f-db42-4889-bbc1-29c3cee25560.mp3"
                length="100182296"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4174</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part III): The “Collegiate Model”</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part III): The “Collegiate Model”</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The “collegiate model” was invented in 2003 by former NCAA president Myles Brand to redefine the NCAA’s conceptualization of amateurism and the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and i...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">76bcf4c2-6dee-49fd-ba8c-e43313ffdfe4</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/76bcf4c2-6dee-49fd-ba8c-e43313ffdfe4</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The “collegiate model” was invented in 2003 by former NCAA president Myles Brand to redefine the NCAA’s conceptualization of amateurism and the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries. Brand used the same tactic that Walter Byers used in the 1950s through his invention of the “student-athlete.” The collegiate model has been put to many purposes, but its most effective and practical use is a justification for BigAmateurism’s maximization of revenue through the commercial exploitation of big-time football and men’s basketball. Like “amateurism” and the “student-athlete”, the “collegiate model” has no coherent or consistent meaning. This episode examines the history of the collegiate model and its use as a linguistics subterfuge to disguise the truth of BigAmateurism’s business model.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/76bcf4c2-6dee-49fd-ba8c-e43313ffdfe4.mp3"
                length="95777684"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3990</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part II): 1945-1956</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part II): 1945-1956</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The period 1945 – 1956 is one of the most consequential eras in the history of college sports. The modern NCAA was born with the hiring of Walter Byers as CEO and the acquisition of legitimate, nat...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a0bd3868-34ae-4d4b-83ac-34ef46aba7ad</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a0bd3868-34ae-4d4b-83ac-34ef46aba7ad</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The period 1945 – 1956 is one of the most consequential eras in the history of college sports. The modern NCAA was born with the hiring of Walter Byers as CEO and the acquisition of legitimate, national enforcement authority. This era saw the NCAA successfully monopolize the market for televised football along with the adoption of the full athletics scholarship as a nationally uniform limit on compensation for revenue-producing athletes’ labor. These transformative milestones were the product of a perfect storm of inter-connected post-WWII events, including the GI Bill’s education benefits, enhanced communications technologies, mainstreaming commercial air travel, and the expansion of television. These societal changes fueled a Wild West recruiting environment in college football and men’s basketball leading to a national debate over the fundamental relationship between revenue-producing athletes and major universities. This debate was framed around the NCAA-driven “Sanity Code” legislation to achieve national agreement on the terms of the athletics scholarship. The Sanity Code was passed in 1948 and served as a compromise between southern schools that insisted on pure athletics scholarships and northern/midwestern schools that insisted on ostensibly merit and need-based scholarships. The regional battle lines had an undeniable racial component. They were driven by one of the most powerful dynamics in college sports: the quest to gain or avoid losing a competitive advantage in the talent acquisition market. Open defiance of the Sanity Code by southern conferences and schools led to its practical death in 1950. The ensuing five years saw a national movement towards adopting the full athletics scholarship independent of NCAA oversight. Between 1950-1952, the NCAA and Walter Byers won two crucial regulatory stand-offs that gave the NCAA legitimate national regulatory authority. The first involved the University of Pennsylvania’s and the University Notre Dame’s independent television packages in defiance of the NCAA’s claim to exclusive rights to televised college football. Under threat of member school boycott, Penn and Notre Dame capitulated to the NCAA’s power play. The second involved a Kentucky basketball point-shaving scandal through which the NCAA forced Kentucky to agree to a one-year ban on competition. The post-Sanity Code recruiting environment and the increasing adoption of the full athletics scholarship resulted in a potent threat to the evolving big-time football marketplace: workers’ compensation liability. Injured athletes contended that their scholarships amounted to contracts for hire through which they were, in reality, employees of their universities. Establishing an employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite to workers’ compensation benefits. Byers and NCAA lawyers invented the concept of the “student-athlete” to mask the true nature of the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and universities. Finally, in 1956, the NCAA and big-time universities agreed to adopt the full athletics scholarship as the single, uniform benefits exchange. This decision abandoned any rational conceptualization of amateurism and adopted open pay-for-play professionalism. In his 1995 expose on college sports— Unsportsmanlike Conduct:  Exploiting College Athletes—Byers said that the adoption of the full athletics scholarship in 1956 was one of the most important single events in the history of college sports.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a0bd3868-34ae-4d4b-83ac-34ef46aba7ad.mp3"
                length="82911524"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3454</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Pay for Play (Part I): 1906-1945</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Pay for Play (Part I): 1906-1945</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The amateur-professional dance of hypocrisy in big-time college sports is defined principally in the relationship between high-value revenue-producing athletes in football and men’s basketball and ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5361d7e3-5043-47df-a590-dbc140aec433</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/5361d7e3-5043-47df-a590-dbc140aec433</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The amateur-professional dance of hypocrisy in big-time college sports is defined principally in the relationship between high-value revenue-producing athletes in football and men’s basketball and the universities who buy their services. From the earliest iterations of BigAmateurism, universities have professed their amateurism virtue to the outside world while privately pursuing professionalism for power, prestige, publicity, and money. This episode—the first in a series—explores the many methods universities have used to quench their thirst for institutional superiority. All roads in this quest lead to one central motivation: gain or avoid losing a competitive advantage in the talent acquisition market. This series looks at several crucial eras that have shaped the evolution of this market, which is among the most misunderstood components of BigAmateurism. We start with the period 1906 – 1945, in which universities competed for talent in a largely unregulated amateurism-based market. In this period, the NCAA had no enforcement authority. The concept of “home rule” governed the market in which conferences and individual universities were left to their honor to adhere to principles of “amateurism.” These vaguely conceptualized restrictions were primarily honored in their breach. We use the 1929 Carnegie Report on American College Athletics to frame the tactics used during the rise of big-time football in the early 20th-century to acquire superior talent. In subsequent episodes, we will examine other vital milestones in the talent acquisition market. This will include an analysis of the “perfect storm” era of 1945 – 1956. In this period, the NCAA acquired meaningful enforcement jurisdiction and authority at the national level. We look at the failed “Sanity Code” which was a compromise attempt to preserve some elements of “amateurism”, the threat of worker’s compensation suits that led to the invention of the “student-athlete”, and the capitulation to full athletics scholarships which former NCAA president Walter Byers described as one of the most important events in the history of college sports. Byers and many other supporters of the Sanity Code believed that the NCAA had abandoned any rational conceptualization of amateurism and adopted explicit pay for play with the full athletics scholarship. The next stop on our journey is 2003 – 2006 with former NCAA president Myles Brand’s conceptualization of the “collegiate model,” in which Brand attempted to reconcile the growing tension between the demand for highly professionalized big-time football and men’s basketball and the NCAA’s insistence on amateurism. Brand’s Orwellian “collegiate model” requires the acceptance of the proposition that “amateur defines the participants, not the enterprise.” We then move to the antitrust era starting in 2006 with lawsuits by athletes challenging the NCAA’s amateurism-based compensation limits, focusing on the remedies the district court and 9th Circuit formulated in the O’Bannon suit. The limited remedy for the NCAA’s violation of antitrust law in its name, image, and likeness compensation restrictions was folded into the athletics scholarship and deemed an education-related benefit consistent with the NCAA’s conceptualization of the athletics scholarship as nothing more than the reimbursement for reasonable and necessary education-related expenses. The O’Bannon remedy as framed by the 9th Circuit highlights the folly of deeming the athletics scholarship as anything other than pay for play. Finally, we look at the changes in the athletics scholarship and other forms of compensation to Power 5 athletes due to the Power 5’s acquisition of “Autonomy” status under the NCAA umbrella.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/5361d7e3-5043-47df-a590-dbc140aec433.mp3"
                length="97378382"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4057</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The Alston Guessing Game</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The Alston Guessing Game</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>How will the US Supreme Court rule in Alston? Predicting how courts may rule is always treacherous terrain, particularly with the US Supreme Court. Will the US Supreme Court throw us a curveball? I...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">79565f2c-ba67-4338-aff0-028ca0b430ec</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/79565f2c-ba67-4338-aff0-028ca0b430ec</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[How will the US Supreme Court rule in Alston? Predicting how courts may rule is always treacherous terrain, particularly with the US Supreme Court. Will the US Supreme Court throw us a curveball? In this episode, I look at four possible outcomes: (1) direct or indirect antitrust immunity for the NCAA in cases challenging their amateurism-based compensation limits; (2) an affirmance of the 9th Circuit’s decision (and the district court’s injunction permitting modest education-related benefits) under a full rule of reason antitrust analysis; (3) sending the case back for further action; and (4) rejection of amateurism as a defense to antitrust liability, opening the door to a free market for the value of athletes’ services. I discuss the likely impact of each of these outcomes and how the NCAA and Power 5 might respond. I frame the Alston case in the context of the significant milestones in the athletes’ rights movement since 2006, none of which has resulted in a meaningful change in the relationship between revenue-producing athletes and in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries. Also, I discuss how the quest for antitrust immunity fits into the NCAA and Power 5’s broader campaign to completely eliminate any external regulatory threats to the status quo business model.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/79565f2c-ba67-4338-aff0-028ca0b430ec.mp3"
                length="82775054"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3449</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The &quot;Prisoner&#039;s Dilemma&quot; (Part III)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The &quot;Prisoner&#039;s Dilemma&quot; (Part III)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Looking at the NCAA-Power 5 prisoner’s dilemma with the benefit of historical context and the evolution of the football product into a dominant sub-cartel under the NCAA umbrella, we look at the ex...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">83612582-51c4-43d0-b2ac-aa1ad1cf8d46</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/83612582-51c4-43d0-b2ac-aa1ad1cf8d46</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Looking at the NCAA-Power 5 prisoner’s dilemma with the benefit of historical context and the evolution of the football product into a dominant sub-cartel under the NCAA umbrella, we look at the existing incentives for both the NCAA and Power 5 to either preserve the status quo through cooperation or to split and pursue their separate interests. This episode explores the reasons why the NCAA and Power 5 have strong incentives to cooperate. The “glue” that binds this cooperation is the NCAA’s overarching, national amateurism-based compensation limits. We analyze these issues through the lens of expert testimony in Alston and a risk-reward framework that incorporates rarely-discussed benefits to the Power 5 of remaining under the NCAA umbrella. I also discuss the implications in Congress of Power 5 infighting.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/83612582-51c4-43d0-b2ac-aa1ad1cf8d46.mp3"
                length="57605120"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3600</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Part II)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Part II)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Since 2010, the Power 5 has solidified its complete market domination of BigAmateurism and sowed the seeds of a breath-taking bull market in college sports history. This era saw the rise of the Pow...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">f5eea9c0-c3f0-4d09-9528-216a208f6c4c</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/f5eea9c0-c3f0-4d09-9528-216a208f6c4c</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Since 2010, the Power 5 has solidified its complete market domination of BigAmateurism and sowed the seeds of a breath-taking bull market in college sports history. This era saw the rise of the Power 5 commissioners and the decline of college presidents as leadership figures in intercollegiate athletics. The Power 5 expanded its market presence and profitability through the College Football Playoff, Inc., creating conference networks, and enhanced regular-season TV packages. The Power 5 schools engage in reckless spending on facilities, coaches’ salaries, athletics administrative overhead, and expansion of sports teams. In March 2020, when COVID brought the most robust bull market in college sports history to an abrupt halt, the cracks in the foundation of BigAmateurism’s business model and historical tensions between the NCAA and big-time football and within the Power 5 conferences revealed themselves yet again. COVID changed the dynamics of the NCAA’s/Power 5’s campaign in the Senate and in the Alston suit for absolute control of the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. The January 5th special elections in Georgia undermined the NCAA’s/Power 5’s advantage in a Republican-controlled Senate and caused the NCAA to suspend indefinitely its claimed commitment to voluntary name, image, and likeness rules changes. The NCAA and Power 5 chose to pull back on their Senate campaign for antitrust immunity, federal preemption of state laws that conflicted with and superseded NCAA amateurism-based compensation limits, and a prohibition on college athletes being deemed employees of their university. Instead, they chose to wait on the outcome of the Alston case in the US Supreme Court. At oral argument on March 31st, the Supreme Court expressed hostility to the NCAA’s amateurism-based justifications for its compensation limits on athletes. These changed circumstances may have fundamentally changed the incentives in the NCAA/Power 5 prisoner’s dilemma.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/f5eea9c0-c3f0-4d09-9528-216a208f6c4c.mp3"
                length="60123998"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3757</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Part I)</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Part I)</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In response to a question from US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on why the Power 5 conferences shouldn’t just be left alone to decide whether to offer the limited education-related benefits...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">d7dbfc9f-c259-4a2c-a667-ae998141523d</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/d7dbfc9f-c259-4a2c-a667-ae998141523d</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In response to a question from US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on why the Power 5 conferences shouldn’t just be left alone to decide whether to offer the limited education-related benefits permitted by the district court’s injunction in Alston, NCAA attorney Seth Waxman said “…this is a classic example of a…prisoner’s dilemma in which national agreement is the only solution. There is no doubt that what has happened with respect to the pay of college coaches and other professionals will happen if conferences or individual schools are permitted to remove these restrictions.” The “prisoner’s dilemma” is a decision analysis that asks the question whether it is best for multiple interests with some conflicting incentives are better off cooperating for the greater benefit of all members or whether they are better off turning against each other and pursuing their individual self-interests. In essence, Waxman said that the only way for the NCAA to secure its monopoly and the Power 5 to preserve its cartel within the NCAA umbrella is to be protected at the national level (i.e., through a broad Supreme Court or Congressional antitrust immunity). Embedded in Waxman’s revealing metaphor is the shaky scaffolding of the relationship between the NCAA and Power 5 and among the Power 5. This episode explores the nature and evolution of these relationships—both between the NCAA and the Power 5 as a unified cartel and among the individual Power 5 conferences—going back to the 1950s. I use Keith Dunnavant’s 2004 book “The 50 Year Seduction: How Television Manipulated College Football, from the Birth of the Modern NCAA to the Creation of the BCS” to frame the historical analysis. I examine four eras, the first two in this episode and the next two in the following episode: (1) 1951-1981—the NCAA TV monopoly years and the cold war between what is now the Big Ten/Pac-12 on the one hand and what is now the ACC, Big 12, and SEC on the other hand ; (2) 1990 – 2010—the chaotic post-Board of Regents television market, the death of the College Football Association, conference realignment fever, the fragile financial interest convergence in football among the Power 5, the “reunification” of the Big Ten/Pac-12 with the Southern football conferences, and the creation of the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Championship Series; (3) 2010 – 2020—the solidification of the Power 5, the seeds of the greatest bull market in college sports history, the rise of the Power 5 commissioners and the decline of college presidents, the expansion of Power 5 market share, and the reckless spending in college sports; and (4) 2020-2021—how COVID exposed the cracks in the foundation of BigAmateurism, how the Power 5’s breathtaking political might influenced the NCAA’s/Power 5’s quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation in Congress, and how the January 5th special elections on Georgia fundamentally altered the NCAA’s/Power 5’s strategy.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 02:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/d7dbfc9f-c259-4a2c-a667-ae998141523d.mp3"
                length="64599304"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4036</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Iron Thrones, Omissions, Conflations, and a Gender Equity Teaser: More on the Alston Argument</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Iron Thrones, Omissions, Conflations, and a Gender Equity Teaser: More on the Alston Argument</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The NCAA’s quest for federal antitrust immunity in the US Supreme Court is in the books. This episode does some clean-up work on issues I didn’t address in the first post-argument episode and also ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">cca78e49-b0fd-4161-94b5-982dc9d80b3b</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/cca78e49-b0fd-4161-94b5-982dc9d80b3b</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The NCAA’s quest for federal antitrust immunity in the US Supreme Court is in the books. This episode does some clean-up work on issues I didn’t address in the first post-argument episode and also looks at some things that were left out of the argument. I also explore some examples of the NCAA’s conflation fetish which is designed to convince Congress and federal courts that Alabama football and Smith College rowing are two peas in an amateurism pod. You are also treated to a spontaneous gender equity rant by the host. I break down post-argument propaganda from the NCAA’s chief legal officer and also from NCAA President Mark Emmert who apparently didn’t get the memo that the NCAA’s quest for the Iron Throne of college sports regulation is still a covert operation. Oops!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 01:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/cca78e49-b0fd-4161-94b5-982dc9d80b3b.mp3"
                length="65631351"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4101</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Gavel to Gavel Analysis of Alston Supreme Court Argument</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Gavel to Gavel Analysis of Alston Supreme Court Argument</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>Important Heads-Up for this Episode: I have an extended intro for this episode that includes a series of audio clips from the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Alston on 3/31. The full intro is abou...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">30c43a77-29cd-4499-a60f-fd68a33a4d39</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/30c43a77-29cd-4499-a60f-fd68a33a4d39</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Important Heads-Up for this Episode: I have an extended intro for this episode that includes a series of audio clips from the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Alston on 3/31. The full intro is about four and a half minutes. These clips cover the range of central issues raised during the argument, literally gavel to gavel. The transcript of the argument (from the Supreme Court website) can be found here with page citations (“TR”) for each clip. The speakers you will hear (in the order presented in the clips) are as follows:

(1) Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the case (TR, 4); 
(2) NCAA lead attorney Seth Waxman’s introductory argument (TR, 4-5); 
(3) athletes’ lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler’s introductory argument (TR, 42); 
(4) Justice Elena Kagan’s comments on amateurism-based compensation limits as amounting to price-fixing [during the NCAA’s argument] (TR, 24-25); 
(5) Justice Neil Gorsuch’s comments on NCAA monopoly/monopsony power combined with price-fixing to limit the labor market for revenue-producing athletes [during NCAA argument] (TR, 29); 
(6) Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s comments on “disturbing” NCAA justification for price-fixing [during NCAA argument] (TR, 33);
(7) Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s questions on athletes’ waiver of claims for an open and free market for the value of athletes’ services [during athletes’ argument] (TR 52-53);
(8) Justice Kagan’s question/comments on fear of “floodgate” of litigation if the Ninth Circuit opinion is upheld [during athletes’ argument] (TR, 56);
(9) Justice Kavanaugh’s question/comments on “floodgate” of litigation concerns [during athletes’ argument] (TR, 60-61);
(10) Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s (representing the United States) argument on relevance of NCAA’s conceptualization of amateurism as relevant only as procompetitive justification for compensation limits rather than its value as a free-standing normative principle (TR, 69-70);
(11) General Prelogar’s closing argument opposing the grant of an antitrust exemption to the NCAA (TR, 86-87);
(12) Waxman’s closing rebuttal argument for NCAA control of the Iron Throne of college sports regulation and Justice Robert’s submission of the case at the close of all arguments (TR, 90).]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2021 03:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/30c43a77-29cd-4499-a60f-fd68a33a4d39.mp3"
                length="55653816"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3477</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>&quot;Amateurism&quot;: The NCAA&#039;s Grand Lie</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>&quot;Amateurism&quot;: The NCAA&#039;s Grand Lie</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>The words “amateur” and “amateurism” flow effortlessly from the mouths of NCAA lawyers and propagandists in litigation and public relations campaigns. But what is amateurism? After nearly 10 years ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">894e4374-fdbe-4624-9ca1-5933be28cce8</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/894e4374-fdbe-4624-9ca1-5933be28cce8</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The words “amateur” and “amateurism” flow effortlessly from the mouths of NCAA lawyers and propagandists in litigation and public relations campaigns. But what is amateurism? After nearly 10 years of litigation in O’Bannon and Alston that focused in large measure on answering that lone question, the NCAA has failed to provide a defensible, coherent definition. This episode looks at amateurism through the eyes of the NCAA, sports and civil rights historians, lawyers, federal district and circuit court judges, U.S. Supreme Court justices, and former NCAA president Myles Brand through his conceptualization of the collegiate model. We analyze amateurism both as a free-standing value and as a procompetitive justification in the rule of reason antitrust framework as it relates to alleged consumer demand for amateurism. In the upcoming Alston oral argument, expect to be assaulted by the NCAA’s lawyers’ use of the words amateur and amateurism, but don’t expect them to be able to define it.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2021 01:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/894e4374-fdbe-4624-9ca1-5933be28cce8.mp3"
                length="63820484"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3988</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Anatomy of the NCAA&#039;s Quest for Absolute Antitrust Immunity in Alston and in Congress</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Anatomy of the NCAA&#039;s Quest for Absolute Antitrust Immunity in Alston and in Congress</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we break down how the NCAA and Power 5 have pursued a sophisticated dual strategy in Congress (primarily the Senate) and in Alston to eliminate federal courts as external regulator...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a9619974-0b1c-42c0-8fc9-bb109b465fcc</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a9619974-0b1c-42c0-8fc9-bb109b465fcc</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, we break down how the NCAA and Power 5 have pursued a sophisticated dual strategy in Congress (primarily the Senate) and in Alston to eliminate federal courts as external regulators in college sports. The NCAA has sought antitrust immunity in the Senate through a stealth lobbying campaign that is disguised through the NCAA's professed intention to seek name, image, and likeness "compensation" for athletes. The proposed bills the NCAA and its Senate allies put forth in 2020 have less to do with NIL compensation than with the acquisition of extraordinary federal protections and immunities that, if granted, would make the NCAA untouchable as the Iron Throne regulator of college sports. In the O'Bannon and Alston antitrust cases, the NCAA and Power 5 have sought the same immunity–explicitly in O'Bannon and disingenuously in Alston. Will the US Supreme Court see the NCAA's power grab in Alston for what it is?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a9619974-0b1c-42c0-8fc9-bb109b465fcc.mp3"
                length="59612361"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3726</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Judicial Fealty to Amateurism?</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Judicial Fealty to Amateurism?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we look at the federal judiciary&#039;s deference to the NCAA&#039;s conceptualization of amateurism in suits by athletes challenging the NCAA&#039;s/Power&#039;s amateurism-based business model. This...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">0dd714b8-efa4-4274-a705-313142afacc1</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/0dd714b8-efa4-4274-a705-313142afacc1</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, we look at the federal judiciary's deference to the NCAA's conceptualization of amateurism in suits by athletes challenging the NCAA's/Power's amateurism-based business model. This deference has six components: (1) benign paternalism; (2) the allure of adhering to venerable American traditions and institutional interests; (3) deference to the judgments of values-based, voluntary nonprofit associations; (4) the fear of unintended consequences; (5) decades-long NCAA public relations campaigns for the preservation of the status quo in college sports; and, (6) endorsements of NCAA/Power 5 institutional and financial interests by credible public figures. These principles of values-based deference to the NCAA's/Power 5's interests operate invisibly to restrict the expansion of athletes' rights in antitrust suits. Will the US Supreme Court be influenced by these principles?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2021 03:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/0dd714b8-efa4-4274-a705-313142afacc1.mp3"
                length="53064361"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3314</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Prepping for the Supreme Court Argument in Alston: Antitrust Overview</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Prepping for the Supreme Court Argument in Alston: Antitrust Overview</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we set the table for the upcoming oral argument in the Alston v NCAA antitrust case. In Alston, the NCAA responds to a challenge to its amateurism-based compensation limits by argu...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a6369a98-088a-436c-8f2b-76e5c5816c17</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a6369a98-088a-436c-8f2b-76e5c5816c17</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, we set the table for the upcoming oral argument in the Alston v NCAA antitrust case. In Alston, the NCAA responds to a challenge to its amateurism-based compensation limits by arguing that as the guardian of amateur principles in college sports, it is immune from antitrust liability. If the NCAA wins on that point, it will be halfway to its ultimate goal of sitting on the Iron Throne of college sports regulation and the athletes rights movement will be dealt a devastating blow.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a6369a98-088a-436c-8f2b-76e5c5816c17.mp3"
                length="59901824"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3744</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Big Ten Secrets</title>
            <itunes:episode></itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Big Ten Secrets</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we look at the opaque world of university president decision-making in the context of the Big Ten’s deliberations in August 2020 regarding fall football. As in nearly all aspects o...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">85d0651c-c02a-42a9-95f0-73ac4c83caf1</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/85d0651c-c02a-42a9-95f0-73ac4c83caf1</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, we look at the opaque world of university president decision-making in the context of the Big Ten’s deliberations in August 2020 regarding fall football. As in nearly all aspects of BigAmateurism’s business operations, nothing is as it is portrayed to the public.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/85d0651c-c02a-42a9-95f0-73ac4c83caf1.mp3"
                length="61036204"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3804</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>The NCAA&#039;s &quot;Omnipotent Czar&quot;</title>
            <itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>The NCAA&#039;s &quot;Omnipotent Czar&quot;</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode answers a question that has been the bane of college sports fans and stakeholders for years: what does the NCAA president actually do? The NCAA president is perhaps the least understoo...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">61a619a8-25d6-444a-8fa5-555135f322e8</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/61a619a8-25d6-444a-8fa5-555135f322e8</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode answers a question that has been the bane of college sports fans and stakeholders for years: what does the NCAA president actually do? The NCAA president is perhaps the least understood power player in the business of BigAmateurism. While NCAA President Mark Emmert does the Indianapolis sashay at the mention of the word accountability, the office he holds has extraordinary powers that have come to define central components of BigAmateurism’s business model in the 21st-century.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/61a619a8-25d6-444a-8fa5-555135f322e8.mp3"
                length="77658389"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3236</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Presidents in Charge?</title>
            <itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Presidents in Charge?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we look at the role of university presidents in BigAmateurism. Under the NCAA constitution (and in NCAA national office rhetoric), all roads—at the institutional, conference, and N...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">a85387c6-58b0-4343-9ac7-c80692c23b74</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/a85387c6-58b0-4343-9ac7-c80692c23b74</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode, we look at the role of university presidents in BigAmateurism. Under the NCAA constitution (and in NCAA national office rhetoric), all roads—at the institutional, conference, and NCAA levels—lead to university presidents in the conduct and control of intercollegiate athletics.  Where did this concept originate? And what assumptions underlie it? We answer these questions and more.]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/a85387c6-58b0-4343-9ac7-c80692c23b74.mp3"
                length="54934457"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>3433</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Meet The Circular Firing Squad: What Exactly Is The NCAA?</title>
            <itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Meet The Circular Firing Squad: What Exactly Is The NCAA?</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>In this episode we begin an exploration of the stakeholders in BigAmateurism. We’ll begin with primary in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries which include the NCAA, universities, university president...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">51894225-d7e4-40ba-9306-fdd32aa542ba</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/51894225-d7e4-40ba-9306-fdd32aa542ba</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[In this episode we begin an exploration of the stakeholders in BigAmateurism. We’ll begin with primary in-system stakeholder-beneficiaries which include the NCAA, universities, university presidents/chancellors, university governing boards, faculty, students, and alumni. First up is the NCAA. What exactly is the NCAA?]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2021 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/51894225-d7e4-40ba-9306-fdd32aa542ba.mp3"
                length="70279424"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>4392</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Red Grange, Transistors, Two Knights, and Genomics</title>
            <itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Red Grange, Transistors, Two Knights, and Genomics</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2cc93a1a-7567-4480-8aa8-4e24c498e519</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/2cc93a1a-7567-4480-8aa8-4e24c498e519</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 19:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/2cc93a1a-7567-4480-8aa8-4e24c498e519.mp3"
                length="49571310"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:image href="https://storage.googleapis.com/com-resonaterecordings-public/cover-art/Hb3InOTdqZPtTVCq3KSm6yyCeDzDdobVtQRZfl4e.jpg" />
                        <itunes:duration>3098</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
                <item>
            <title>Perfect Storm</title>
            <itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode>

            
            <itunes:title>Perfect Storm</itunes:title>
            <itunes:subtitle>This episode offers a 30,000 feet overview of the BigAmateurism podcast and a brief description of milestone events from 2006-2021 (with an emphasis on 2019-2021) that have created a perfect storm ...</itunes:subtitle>
            <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">78ac95b5-d85c-4c2e-9aac-344ab5131cb7</guid>
            <link>https://app.resonaterecordings.com/hosting/bigamateurism/78ac95b5-d85c-4c2e-9aac-344ab5131cb7</link>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[This episode offers a 30,000 feet overview of the BigAmateurism podcast and a brief description of milestone events from 2006-2021 (with an emphasis on 2019-2021) that have created a perfect storm that will likely be viewed as one of the most consequential eras in the history of college sports. Meet the host, receive a briefing on the podcast's itinerary, and enjoy the show!]]>
            </description>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <enclosure
                url="https://media.resonaterecordings.com/bigamateurism/78ac95b5-d85c-4c2e-9aac-344ab5131cb7.mp3"
                length="47646608"
                type="audio/mpeg" />
                                    <itunes:duration>2978</itunes:duration>

            <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
            <googleplay:explicit>false</googleplay:explicit>
                    </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>
