Tad Stryker: Gambling Scandal Underscores Need for Federal Legislation

Is an organization that is powerless to enforce its own rules worth hanging onto anymore?

If he were still around, John Nance Garner, vice president for Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms, might say that today’s NCAA “isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.” Actually, Garner, who made his comment almost a century ago, was talking about the relative value of the vice presidency, and he didn’t say “spit.” But I digress.

The U.S. vice president never has possessed much influence. The NCAA, on the other hand, used to wield quite a bit of power, but the federal courts have pretty much stripped it all away. And in the last week or so, a relatively obscure state court in Lubbock County, Texas, gave the ultimate middle finger to the agency that was created to oversee college athletics: it ruled that Brendan Sorsby, a prolific sports wagerer who played college football on the side, cannot be barred from participating for Texas Tech University this fall.

Sorsby has admitted to placing dozens of bets involving his own team when he was at Indiana University. If the recent court ruling holds up, Sorsby, who started at quarterback two years for the University of Cincinnati, would be playing for his third school in five seasons this fall. If you can’t take action against someone who blatantly crosses the most sacrosanct of barriers guarding the integrity of competition, of what practical good are you as an organization? If things continue as they are, college sports will have very few cohesive regulations because the NCAA is on a course toward oblivion, or at least, greatly reduced influence.

Welcome to the ‘Wild West’?

Without any federal legislation to undergird the NCAA, college sports will plunge farther into “Wild West” mode. The Big Ten and SEC and a dozen or two invited guests who can sustain absurd levels of spending on their athletics programs over the long term will break away and form their own football league, with its own system of governance. It’s hard to say whether the “NFL Lite” would also include basketball. It almost certainly would not include non-revenue sports. Since its main goal would be to raise revenue, why would it bother with baseball, wrestling and volleyball? The best possible scenario for the NCAA’s survival would be that it somehow retain rights to March Madness, which might keep it in business for a while.

In that scenario, the NCAA would likely preside over the second- and third-tier football schools and all non-revenue sports: baseball, wrestling, volleyball, track and field and so forth, whose schools would likely reorganize into the regional conferences they historically belonged to before skyrocketing television revenue started driving conference realignment.

Would the Nebraska’s non-revenue sports be part of the Big Ten? Would they return to the Big 12? Would they get the old Big Eight back together again?

Over the long haul, it’s easy to visualize Olympic sports in schools not currently in Power Four conferences reverting to club status. If you coach Wichita State softball or Western Michigan baseball and you want your team to travel beyond a 250-mile radius, you might want to start pondering how to organize bake sales.

It’s pretty obvious that a lot of folks are coming to similar conclusions. A strangely united message is coming from Capitol Hill. The message: college sports are in crisis and need intervention.

A chance of survival

You were already aware of this, but the mere fact that multiple Democrats and Republicans, who can scarcely agree on the time of day or the concept that May precedes June, are coming to the same conclusion confirms what your own gut has been telling you.

The bipartisan legislation proposed in late May is called the Protect College Sports Act of 2026. It’s a sign that college sports as we used to know them not so many years ago may still have a chance of survival. It’s a bill that is truly needed, because without an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, the federal courts have helped create the Wild West atmosphere with NIL and the transfer portal running amok. Sorsby’s three teams in five years is rapidly becoming the rule rather than the exception across many college sports.

The legislation includes a clearinghouse of good ideas gleaned from various sources. It would give the NCAA and its member schools limited antitrust exemption which would enable them to enforce rules and regulations without fear of being undercut by the court system.

The bill covers topics as wide-ranging as NIL regulation, curtailing sports agents, limiting college athletes to five seasons, guaranteeing scholarships for 10 years for all athletes, requiring Division I schools to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries during participation and for five years after an athlete’s final competition.

It would set Jan. 8 as the approximate ending date for the college football season. Coaches would be banned from switching schools until the end of the season. It would allow schools and conferences to voluntarily form a covered entity to pool and sell certain college sports media rights, mirroring the antitrust exemption for the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and the NHL, as long as 75 percent of current FBS schools agree to do so.

A return to sanity

It really seems like there’s a concerted effort to return sanity to college sports.

The proposed legislation would include the “Five in five” concept, which essentially eliminates the redshirt rule and allows all college athletes five years of competition. “FIve in five” reportedly includes the ability for schools to sign players to multi-year contracts, making it easier for fans to figure out who might be on their favorite team next season.

Just as importantly, it would make it more likely that your grandchildren and mine might be able to enjoy watching college sports as I have for my whole life. Or even better, it would make it more likely they would have a decent chance to participate because, there would be no entrenched sixth- and seventh-year players holding roster spots.

It makes a world of sense. College sports are meant to be transitory, not a career. The college athletic experience should be confined to a relatively narrow window of opportunity which closes rapidly to make way for other high school graduates who also have goals and aspirations to come in and pursue their dreams.

This concept alone is enough to make me oppose the idea of making college athletes employees. Why should a quarterback with no real NFL future, but can execute his college offense well, be able to hang on for 10 to 12 years as an employee? It wasn’t all that long ago that kids who excelled in high school could look forward to continuing competing at the college level. In basketball, that has become increasingly rare as former professional athletes from various parts of the world come to the USA to claim scholarships and opportunities that forces other American athletes into lower levels of collegiate competition, and eventually slams the door on kids who would have been able to play Division III or NAIA sports. The PCSA would eliminate people who have played professionally from playing NCAA sports.

The PCSA is neutral on employee status for college athletes, but it contains enough other commonsense concepts that it deserves quick enactment.

The need for an exemption

Why is the antitrust exemption necessary? It’s because fans with deep loyalties are involved, which is a desirable concept. In this case, the exemption is needed to maximize the competitive atmosphere, so your favorite team and mine both have a decent chance at winning championships once in a while. The concept works differently in sports than it does in the capitalistic marketplace. In sports, if there’s no regulation of payment, eventually a few rich teams pull away and dominate. That’s what’s happening in college sports.

Even though college sports are interstate commerce, people don’t buy tickets to watch as the Ford Motor Company tries to create better-selling products than General Motors. Fan interest is what justifies an antitrust exemption for sports like Major League Baseball, and the same logic should apply to college football or basketball.

I am well aware that college boosters have been illegally paying football players under the table for years. But typically, they’ve been only able to buy four or five difference-makers, not 15 or 20 like is happening now. Some semblance of salary control makes it possible for a great coach to give his team a shot. History tells us that when the playing field is close to level, a developmental genius in a small-population state who comes up with a system that he runs well can compete, and even win a a national title or two …. or three.

I don’t know if the PCSA would prevent the Big Ten and SEC from forming the NFL Lite, but I think it would slow down that runaway train considerably. It certainly would rescue the NCAA and make it sustainable, within limits set by Congress. Olympic sports and women’s sports would be protected, players would have the right to transfer once without losing eligibility, revenue sharing would be maintained and NIL, instead of being outright pay for play, would be limited to what it was intended to be in the first place.

An organization with the means to actually enforce its rules. That’s a concept worth trying again.

Stay up to date on all things Huskers by bookmarking Nebraska Cornhuskers On SI, subscribing to HuskerMax on YouTube and visiting HuskerMax.com daily.

Add us as a preferred source on Google