Advisors at your service 24/7

Facebook
Twitter
WhizzAcademics.com

Calculate Price

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
Whizz15

THE MONOPOLISTIC POWER OF THE NCAA1

 

THE MONOPOLISTIC POWER OF THE NCAA1

Carl Anderson and Francine Schlosser wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2014, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation            Version: 2014-04-04

 

On the eve of the 2012 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) convention, NCAA president Mark Emmert prepared to address conference and university presidents as well as other leaders in academics and collegiate athletics regarding the future of the NCAA model. There had been much debate over whether the NCAA was still able to serve the best interests of the organization’s member institutions. Public trust had undoubtedly worn thin as the integrity and ethics of the organization had been called into question due to recent high-profile scandals, student-athlete eligibility issues, rules compliance, academic performance, what was perceived as the run-away commercialism of collegiate athletics, and wide differences in budget and philosophy among the NCAA’s nearly 350 Division I member schools.2 Emmert needed to consider how he might lead the effort to fix the collegiate model in the context of the contemporary athletics landscape.

As the hours leading up to Emmert’s opening address rapidly approached, his comments to the media addressed the urgency of the situation and the damaging effects of recent scandals on the NCAA’s organizational power structure. “We have to acknowledge there are real problems that need to be dealt with and we have to deal with them in the real context of the 21st century,” Emmert emphasized.3 The NCAA was facing a fork in the road; some critics had even suggested abandoning the collegiate athletic model that the NCAA had administered for over a century. Emmert, however, sought a different approach — one more aligned with the NCAA’s stated mission and goals, with an emphasis placed on the leadership of the NCAA to reach those goals.

 

Emmert knew he had major decisions to make between the 2012 and 2013 conventions. However, in the wake of these decisions, a larger problem loomed within the power structure of the revenue-generating “haves” and budget-conscience “have-nots” in college athletics. Most importantly, Emmert would have to help the NCAA transition from an increasingly capitalist culture back to its social mandate, and reposition the organization to meet the needs of all of its member institutions.

THE HISTORY AND FOUNDATION OF THE NCAA

The unique tale of the NCAA spanned more than a century, beginning with President Theodore Roosevelt’s meeting with college athletic leaders to encourage reforms in late 1905. The following year,

 

concerns over the safety of student-athletes sparked the founding of the non-profit NCAA in 1906, which thereafter served as a voluntary governing body to its member institutions.4

By 2012, the NCAA had grown to sponsor 89 collegiate national championships in 23 different sports across three separate divisions. The organization oversaw its member institutions through an 18-member board of directors and the leadership of its president.5 Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the NCAA established a multitude of bylaws and governing procedures for its member institutions. These bylaws dictated how the NCAA established rules of play, administered national championships, determined student-athlete eligibility and leveraged sanctions along with other governance issues. Recent growth in commercial interests surrounding the organization had further expanded the role of the NCAA within inter-collegiate athletics.

The foundation of the NCAA was based on two traditional principles: education and student-athlete amateurism. The organization’s stated mission was to “govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.”6 However, the NCAA’s activities gradually expanded beyond safety and governing concerns into economic regulation, including the control of athletic scholarships and television broadcast rights for championship events.

This increasingly capitalist approach conflicted with the NCAA’s key role as the national governing body of collegiate athletics and its member institutions in the United States and Canada. Critics claimed that the organization was corrupt and cartel-based, given the lack of financial accountability and its exploitation of student-athletes. Nevertheless, as a non-profit institution, the NCAA had worked hard to justify its centralized authority as a way to align organization and athletics as closely as possible to the educational mission of its member institutions.

Evolution of the NCAA

The organizational power of the NCAA grew exponentially in the spring of 1951, when Walter Byers was named the first full-time executive director. In his first year on the job, Byers faced the NCAA’s first true scandal: a basketball point-shaving conspiracy involving the reigning national champion, the University of Kentucky. Consequently, Byers expanded the NCAA’s primary objectives from discussion and governance to include actual enforcement. Byers levied his power as executive director and instituted sanctions on the University of Kentucky while jointly lobbying the university’s president to not contest his ruling, as the NCAA had no legitimate authority to levy such sanctions at that time. The result was the University of Kentucky’s forfeiting of the 1952-1953 season. The NCAA had established its centralized command and credibility in enforcing its rules.7

From 1951 to 1984, major milestones led the NCAA to capitalize on a revenue windfall as the advent of television thrust college sports into the national spotlight. Because each member institution negotiated its own arrangements to televise games, competitiveness led to inequities in media profile among the NCAA members. Subsequently, a ruling made at the 1951 NCAA convention voted 161—7 to outlaw televised games by individual universities except for a specific few licensed by the NCAA staff. Two prominent universities at the time, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Notre Dame, rejected this ruling but were soon subdued by Byers via threats of group boycott by NCAA member institutions and future penalties.8

Through the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, the NCAA again won a major concession as Congress granted an antitrust exemption to the National Football League contingent upon the blackout of professional football on Saturdays.9 As a consequence, the power of the NCAA grew to control television broadcast rights as television revenue associated with Saturday broadcasts became exclusive to college football. Byers secured more power and money for the NCAA by controlling the college football television contracts and the regulation of college sports. Naturally, in light of this increasing power, the question of how to retain it became paramount. The answer for the NCAA became abundantly clear in the form of its most powerful control mechanism, student-athlete amateurism.

In subsequent years the NCAA utilized its regulatory power and expanded the meaning of the term “amateurism” to further solidify its position at the helm of collegiate athletics. This was achieved through NCAA-issued bylaws that strictly prohibited student-athletes from receiving revenue derived from their likenesses in any commercial product or endeavour. Essentially, the NCAA engaged in price fixing of its most important commodity in order to reap the rewards of commercial ventures involving student- athletes’ images and likenesses in its own endeavours. Ed O’Bannon, who won the 1995 men’s basketball national championship while attending the University of California, Los Angeles, spoke out against the NCAA in its use of athletes’ likenesses in its own commercial pursuits. A lawsuit filed by O’Bannon to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco sought “unspecified damages from the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company for the use of players’ images and likenesses in video content, photographs and other memorabilia.”10

Although lawsuits from O’Bannon and other former student-athletes argued that students were entitled to a piece of the commercial success the NCAA garnered from the use of their likenesses, the NCAA protected itself in the form of a contract signed by student-athletes prior to enrollment. The legality of this contract was central to a class action lawsuit against the NCAA, as the contract gave the NCAA the right to use student-athletes’ images even after they left university.11 A 2011 poll conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted widespread misunderstanding among students regarding their rights; many had unknowingly signed away their rights to commercial use of their likenesses without compensation.12 The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (Knight Commission)13 and the NCAA were at odds over the ethics of this approach.14

In 1984, a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States by the University of Oklahoma marked the first time the NCAA’s power was curtailed under Byers’ tenure. The ruling held that the NCAA television plan enforced under Byers violated certain Acts, and that the NCAA’s actions constituted price fixing, output restraints, boycott and monopolizing, all of which were illegal, thus ending 33 years of NCAA regulation of television and broadcast revenue associated with college football.15 However, the NCAA still controlled the broadcast rights to its championship events and what would soon become the NCAA’s strongest financial commodity, the NCAA Division I men’s basketball national championship tournament.

Byers stepped down in 1988, but not before ushering in a new era in college athletics and the subsequent evolution of the NCAA. Leadership of the NCAA was vested to Dick Schultz in 1988, and was then passed along to Cedrick Dempsey, Myles Brand and Jim Isch before Emmert took over in October of 2010.16 As NCAA leadership changed so too did the evolution of the organization’s business model and apparent strategic focus. As revenue continued to grow so did concern over long-standing NCAA principles on amateurism and the ability of student-athletes to receive a piece of the NCAA’s commercial success; what would be the impact on the NCAA’s commitment to education if this were to change?

A Money-making Machine

After Emmert assumed power in the fall of 2010, the runaway commercialization of collegiate athletics became more broadly debated. Critics indicated that the NCAA had strayed from the organization’s stated mission and lobbied the NCAA for a realignment of its core educational values. This was largely due to the fact that the NCAA had slowly evolved into a multibillion-dollar regulatory industry with coaches’ salaries, television contracts and media coverage rivaling that of many professional leagues.17 However, in light of the NCAA’s growing commercial presence and monopolistic structure, the organization’s fundamental concept and core values continued to support its member institutions. Despite what critics perceived as the NCAA’s cartel-like presence in controlling revenue-producing commercial activities, redistribution was often directly connected with its stated mission. The NCAA revenue distribution plan stated:

The NCAA and our member colleges and universities together award $2.4 billion in athletic scholarships every year to more than 150,000 student-athletes. In addition, we provide almost $100 million each year to support student-athletes’ academic pursuits and assist them with the basic needs of college life, such as a computer, clothing or emergency travel expenses. We also put on 89 championships in 23 sports, protect student-athletes with catastrophic-injury insurance coverage and fund a number of scholarship, grant and internship programs. A small percentage of that revenue is used to operate the NCAA’s national office, including the operation of championship events. But in the end, more than 90 cents of every dollar the NCAA generates goes to our member institutions to support student-athletes.18

As the NCAA grew exponentially via its influence over collegiate athletics, so too did its financial backing. According to the NCAA revenue office, the 2011/12 budget (ending in August 2012) received revenues in excess of $777 million, of which $680 million was derived from commercial sources such as television and marketing rights fees.19 The NCAA had announced its new television and multi-media deal for the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament: a 14-year, $10.8 billion agreement with CBS Broadcasting Inc. (CBS) and Turner Sports. One source reported, “The new deal will pay $10.8 billion — nearly $771 million a year — for the men’s basketball tournament, and additional payments for digital and other new media rights will push the total value past $11 billion. It is a 41 per cent increase over CBS’ average rights fee in its old NCAA [television] deal.”20

Additional commercial broadcast agreements were also taking shape with ESPN network for the women’s basketball tournament, college world series and other NCAA championships. Emmert commented on the concerns of increased NCAA commercialism stating, “There is no reason to apologize for the fact that college football and basketball are wildly popular and generate revenue that allows the Association to benefit hundreds of thousands of student-athletes. But that’s not what we live for.”21 Emmert would go on to clarify his position:

The NCAA did a fabulous job of negotiating the most recent media rights agreement, but the $10.8 billion is what makes the headlines. Then you all go to your Rotary Clubs and say that in college sports we care about amateurism; and they look at you and say, ‘$10.8 billion and amateurism? Help me understand that.’ We have to make sure people know what we stand for and what we care about. Yes, we want to maximize our media contracts, but we have to talk about why. What do we do with those resources? How does it enhance students’ lives? How does it help shape the championships across all our sports?22

Further impacting public perception was a 2009 report released by the Congressional Budget Office that indicated “big-time college sports programs derive 60 to 80 per cent of their revenue from commercial sources, suggesting that intercollegiate athletics — at least at the elite levels — may have ‘crossed the line’ from an educational to a commercial endeavour.”23 The risk facing the NCAA was whether the increase in commercial endeavours across the board would eventually expedite the existing financial imbalance among member institutions and divide the revenue-producing college athletic programs from

the NCAA. Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swoffard commented, “It is a competitive issue, it is not an equal competitive playing field to begin with when you have budgets that range from $5 million to $145 million.”24

The growing commercial presence of the NCAA caught the attention of those within intercollegiate athletics, as well as government legislators who were evaluating the NCAA’s non-profit status. Bill Thomas, a California Republican and former chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, was outspoken on the issues surrounding the NCAA’s tax-exempt status. According to Thomas, “Most of the activities undertaken by educational organizations clearly further their exempt status, the exempt purpose of intercollegiate athletics, however, is less apparent, particularly in the context of major college football and men’s basketball programs.”25 The fact that Congress began to question the NCAA’s non-profit status highlighted the issues and risks surrounding its commercial ventures. Nathan Tublitz, co-chair of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, stated, “[It] ignored the basic principle that non-profit organizations are granted their special non-profit status by the IRS to further their mission, which in the case of universities and colleges is exclusively educational.”26

Public Trust Wears Thin

During Emmert’s initial term as NCAA president, scandal after scandal rocked the college athletic landscape from some of its most prestigious athletic programs. Public trust for NCAA rules and compliance bylaws, as well as student-athlete academic performance, continued to wear thin, even among the most influential figures in college athletics. Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds stated, “[Athletic directors want] to eliminate rules that are almost impossible to enforce and to give institutions safe harbour if they do all the things they are supposed to do on the compliance side.”27 The NCAA’s vice- president of enforcement, Julie Roe Lach, had already announced a restructuring of her department that was designed to “focus more staff on critical issues in a concentrated way.”28 A new information development staff would pursue contacts and leads, targeting football and men’s basketball as well as agents and gambling in particular.

Under Emmert’s leadership the NCAA continued to work through the fallout from various allegations: 2010 Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton receiving improper benefits29; five members of the Ohio State University football team charged with selling athletic memorabilia30; charges that North Carolina athletes received improper, agent-related benefits31; academic misconduct; and, in 2012, the scandal at Pennsylvania State University leading to a $60-million fine and a four-year ban from the NCAA for concealing child-sex crimes32. These issues were in addition to other mounting concerns in collegiate athletics, which were chronicled most notably through three separate reform reports from the Knight Commission. In 2001, the second report from the Knight Commission highlighted some of the more prominent issues:33

A frantic, money-oriented modus operandi that defies responsibility dominates the structure of big-time football and basketball. The vast majority of these schools don’t profit from their athletics programs: At over half the schools competing at the NCAA’s Division I-A level in 1999, expenses exceeded revenues by an average of $3.3 million, an increase of 18 per cent over the previous two years. On the other hand, for the 48 Division I-A institutions where revenues exceeded expenses, the average “profit” more than doubled, increasing 124 per cent from $1.7 million to $3.8 million from 1997 to 1999 . . . . Too much in major college sports is geared to accommodating excess. Too many athletic directors and conference commissioners serve principally as money managers, ever alert to maximizing revenues. And too many have looked to their stadiums and arenas to generate more money.

 

A 2011 article highlighted the overriding public opinion on the NCAA:34

The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it — most notably by the three Knight Commissions over the course of 20 years —have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless. The time has come for a major overhaul. And whether the powers that be like it or not, big changes are coming. Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory.

While the NCAA continued to operate as a non-profit entity and was classified as an educational organization, it experienced an increase in lawsuits filed against its operations, in part due to its commercial success. From 1995 to 2009, the NCAA spent more than $84 million on legal fees, including some of its settlements.35 The NCAA’s control and monopoly over commercial licensing was threatened and it seemed probable that there would be a dramatic reshaping of NCAA bylaws and the ability to enforce them.

Disparity amongst Member Institutions

The disparity among the “haves” and “have-nots” in college athletics had never been higher, causing immense concern regarding future reform. Emmert’s reform package called for athletic conferences to award scholarships beyond one-year renewals and up to $2,000 to each student-athlete to cover the full cost of attendance. “The model of scholarship support used by the NCAA is more than 40 years old and no longer correlates with the expectations and demands placed on today’s student-athletes. The current Division I Manual — and the process of enforcing it — also does not reflect the times,” Emmert said.36 The problem appeared to stem from financial instability, as some member schools simply could not afford such reforms, while others openly campaigned for them. Some wondered whether this competitive and financial imbalance within college athletics was unavoidable; perhaps the NCAA was only positioned to provide moderate equality.

The structuring of the revenue-producing Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was one notable mechanism that separated the “haves” and “have-nots” in college athletics. The BCS directed the governance and television revenue for the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) apart from the NCAA. Accordingly, the BCS system created five mega-revenue annual bowl “match-ups” involving 10 of the top-ranked teams in the NCAA Division I FBS, including an opportunity for the top two to compete in the BCS national championship game. However, the system guaranteed access to only six of the 11 NCAA FBS-sponsored athletic conferences. During the 2010—2011 bowl season, for example, the six qualifying conferences were given $145.2 million in revenue from the BCS, while the five non-qualifying conferences received only $24.7 million.37

This inequity in the system encouraged speculation about a potential secession of richer collegiate athletic programs given their financial wherewithal. From 2010 to 2014, the more prosperous and pedigreed programs in the six major conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and South Eastern Conference) had engaged in conference expansion and secured massive conference-affiliated network deals. Emmert feared the formation of regional “super-conferences” consisting of the wealthiest and most prestigious athletic programs splitting from the NCAA and forming their own association and rules of governance. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick predicted that this split was inevitable.38

Consideration of alternatives highlighted that the power imbalance between the wealthiest athletic programs and those without additional monetary resources was a major stumbling block for NCAA reform. Future reform may hinge on luring the college football national championship and the financial backing from the BCS back under NCAA governance. When asked by former University of Florida president Charles Young whether there was a way the NCAA could control football, Emmert said, “My stock answer has always been that we serve the members of the NCAA and if the members of the NCAA want to go [to an FBS championship model], then we know how to run championships and we would be more than happy to do it if that is what they want. And that is still my position.”39

It was also an option for the NCAA to try to compromise, for example, by customizing functions the organization provided for different tiers of schools that would address student-athlete eligibility, services and competitive rules. Swarbrick again indicated, “Who’s to say there cannot be functions the NCAA provides for one set of schools and more comprehensive functions for another?”40 Emmert recognized that this approach might create further disparity in governance, competition and commercial revenue if not all members were playing under a similar set of rules.

Efforts to reform were hindered by widening financial gaps and the subsequent power of the wealthiest athletic programs. Consequently, by rectifying disparity, or at the very least increasing revenue- generating opportunities among the “have-nots,” the NCAA leadership might take a first real step in reforming the NCAA model. Big 12 Conference commissioner Dan Beebe echoed Emmert’s concerned comments on the future of the NCAA model of athletics: “There [are] a lot of motive[s] to make some fundamental changes . . . more sweeping changes than we’ve probably seen in the past.”41

The Road Toward Reform

Emmert knew that at this pivotal juncture, the NCAA, conference and university presidents, and other leaders in college athletics (see Exhibit 1) would have to choose a direction forward. Would the NCAA choose to reform or abandon the collegiate model it had nurtured for more than a century? Rules compliance and revenue sharing in order to provide avenues for reform provided pressing reasons to keep the NCAA intact.; however, Emmert wondered whether equity within collegiate athletics was even possible, or whether the NCAA’s historical principles on education and student-athlete amateurism still held weight within the contemporary athletics landscape of the 21st century. Congress, court proceedings, and the NCAA’s non-profit status might force the organization’s hand before Emmert could efficiently and effectively lead the NCAA into a new era. With all of these issues in mind, Emmert proposed the following in his address to the delegates:

Let’s bring the collegiate model up to date in the 21st century, consistent with our values as academic enterprises. We have to work together to make sure that we act on those values, that we let the world know which branch of the fork we have chosen. If we do, by the time we get together next year, we will have a very different storyline than the one we have this year.42

As the organizational structure of the NCAA braced for change, the power the NCAA once held over its member institutions began to loosen. Gone were days when the NCAA regulated the broadcast television rights of college football and, by extension, guaranteed the continued financial growth and power of some of the most prestigious athletic programs in the United States. The NCAA’s remaining power rested on its multibillion-dollar television contract for the Division I NCAA men’s basketball championship. Emmert understood that without this the organization would be reduced to a governing body aspiring to carry out its rules but without the financial authority to enforce them.

 

 

ENDNOTES

1 This case has been written on the basis of published sources only. Consequently, the interpretation and perspectives presented in this case are not necessarily those of the NCAA or any of its employees or affiliates. 2 “Division 1,” NCAA, www.ncaa.org/about?division=d1, accessed February 23, 2014. 3 “Emmert Embraces Collegiate Model,” NCAA, January 13, 2012, www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-01-12/emmert- embraces-collegiate-model, accessed February 14, 2014.

4 R. Smith, “A Brief History of the National Collegiate Athletic Associations Role in Regulating Intercollegiate Athletics,” Marquette Sports Law Review, 2000, www.scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=sportslaw, accessed February 23, 2014. 5 “Championships,” NCAA, www.ncaa.org/about/what-we-do/championships, accessed February 14, 2014.

6 “NCAA Core Purposes and Values,” NCAA, www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-core-purpose-and-values, accessed February 14, 2014.

7

  1. Branch, “The Shame   of            College  Sports,”              The         Atlantic,                October,                2011,

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-collegesports/308643/?single_page=true, accessed February

14, 2014.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 M. Garcia, “Class-action Suit Filed vs. NCAA Over Use of Players’ Likenesses,” USA Today, July 22, 2009,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2009-07-21-ncaa-class-action-lawsuit_N.htm, accessed February 14, 2014.

11 M. Alesia, “Three Lawsuits May Change how NCAA Operates, USA Today, July 26, 2009,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2009-07-26-ncaa-lawsuits_N.htm, accessed February 14, 2014.

12 B. Wolverton, “Many Athletes Unknowingly Sign Away Rights to Profit from Their Images,” The Chronicle of Higher

Education, April 20, 2011, http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/many-athletes-unknowingly-sign-away-rights-to-profit-from-

their-images/28512, accessed February 14, 2014.

13 “About,” Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, www.knightcommission.org/about, accessed February 23, 2014.

14 T. Branch, op. cit.

15 K. K. Rowe, “NCAA v. Board of Regents: a Broadening of the Rule of Reason,” Journal of College and University Law,

1984, 11:377.

16 Office of the President,” www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/office-president, accessed February 14, 2014.

17 V. Fitt, “The NCAA’s Lost Cause and the Legal Ease of Redefining Amateurism,” Duke Law Journal, 2009, 59, pp. 555-

593.

18 “Finances,” NCAA, www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances, accessed February 23, 2014.

19 Ibid.

20 T. O’Toole, “NCAA Reaches 14-year Deal with CBS/Turner for Men’s Basketball Tournament, which Expands to 68

Teams for Now,” USA Today, April 22, 2010, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/04/ncaa-

reaches-14-year-deal-with-cbsturner/1#.Uv54WrOYaUk, accessed February 24, 2014.

21 “Emmert Embraces Collegiate Model,” op. cit.

22 “Office of the President,” op. cit.

23 B. Wolverton, “Commercialization in College Sports May Have ‘Crossed the Line,’” Chronicle of Higher Education, May

20, 2009, http://chronicle.com/article/Commercialization-in-College/47265, accessed February 14, 2014.

24 Steve Wieberg, “NCAA Could See ‘Fundamental Changes’ in Way it Operates,” USA Today, July 6, 2011,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-07-05-ncaa-scandals-changes_n.htm, accessed February 14, 2014.

25 B. Wolverton, “NCAA Defends Tax-exempt Status as Congressional Scrutiny of Colleges Increases,” Chronicle of Higher

Education, November 24, 2006, http://chronicle.com/article/NCAA-Defends-Tax-Exempt-Status/24478/, accessed February

14, 2014.

26 B. Wolverton, “Commercialization in College Sports May Have ‘Crossed the Line,” op. cit.

27 Steve Wieberg, “NCAA Could See ‘Fundamental Changes’ in Way it Operates,” op. cit.

28 Ibid.

29 C. McCartney, “Despite Money Allegations, Cam Newton is Still One to Beat,” Sports Illustrated, November 8, 2010,

www.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cory_mccartney/11/08/Newton.Heisman.Watch/, accessed March 2, 2014.

30 R. Ludlow, “NCAA Tells Ohio State it Finds No New Violations,” The Columbus Dispatch, July 23, 2011,

www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2011/07/22/ncaa-ohio-state-violations.html, accessed March 2, 2014.

31 Steve Wieberg, “Probe Puts Black Mark on North Carolina Football,” USA TODAY, September 9, 2010,

www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/acc/2010-09-08-unc-probes-frustrated-athletic-department_N.htm,

accessed March 2, 2014.

32

“‘Stark Wake-Up Call’ With $60 Million Fine for Penn State,” CNN, July 24, 2012, www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/pennsylvania-penn-state-ncaa/index.html, accessed March 2, 2014. 33 “A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education,” Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2001_knight_report.pdf, accessed February 14, 2014. 34 T. Branch, op. cit.

 

OBJECTIVE:  The objective of this assignment is to give you the opportunity to critically analyze a current issue by applying your understanding of business concepts.

 

PART 1

Respond to each question thoroughly, keeping in mind the need for clarity, organization, and proper citation of external research.

 

Question 1:  As outlined in the case, describe the mission of the NCAA. In addition, name the stakeholders being addressed in the mission statement as well as other stakeholders who should be considered.  (20 points)

 

Question 2:  Explain how the NCAA may or may not be aligned with its stated mission and core values and how it can further exemplify its mission.   In your explanation, provide three specific examples.  (25 points)

 

Question 3:  Develop a SWOT analysis for the NCAA.  Utilizing research in addition to the case, provide at least three examples of each element of the SWOT analysis.  (20 points)

 

Question 4:  Using leadership characteristics described in your textbook and additional research, cite specific behaviors the NCAA utilizes to maintain the support of its member institutions.  (20 points)

 

Question 5:  Select ONE of the following three options for NCAA going forward and describe the pros and cons associated with your choice.    Cite a minimum of three pros and three cons.  Be sure to use external research.  (30 points)

 

  1. Abandon the NCAA model given that the economic landscape of college athletics has progressed beyond its ability to regulate and be seen as a desirable organization with which to be affiliated.
  2. Restructure the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) college football postseason model and instead create a revenue sharing model associated with a FBS championship playoff under the supervision of the NCAA.
  3. Reshape the NCAA organizational structure reforming issues pertaining to rules compliance, scholarships and athletes academic performance. Address revenue-sharing and student-athlete amateurism bylaws and consider the possibility of a post-athletic financial disbursement program for student athletes whose likeness and images are used in NCAA commercial endeavors.

 

 

PART 2

Paper composition:  (10 Points)

 

  • Use at least five external sources in addition to the article provided and your textbook.
  • Proper citations are required.
  • The paper should be a minimum 1,800 words, double spaced and in MLA format.
  • The introduction is an important part of your assignment. This helps to define the quality of the assignment in the eyes of the reader. For this assignment, your introduction must include a background of the main points of the case and a clear indication of the organization of your paper.
  • The conclusion of the assignment is your ultimate chance to provide powerful evidence of your knowledge of the case to the reader. Your conclusion should at a minimum provide a summary of the main points and arguments raised in the paper.

 

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
Whizz15

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Category: Sample Questions