Why do we have the ncaa

That by itself is a remarkable statement for the man who, at least for now, is still tasked with ensuring the NCAA remains relevant in an era where many of the things it does are no longer necessary.

Now he believes conferences and individual schools should point the way toward finding the path forward. I was in the courtroom in Oakland, California, in when the trial that eventually upended college sports as we know them unfolded. Among those testifying was the commissioner of the Big Ten at the time, Jim Delany, who said the idea of paying players would ruin the college experience and destroy the business model of big-time college sports.

Delany testified that if members of his league paid players they would be kicked out of the conference, and that it could bring about the end of the Rose Bowl as it was then structured. The answer to the first question is easy enough. Outside of running March Madness, the NCAA oversees championships in a variety of sports, providing a framework for crowning national champions in sports like golf, lacrosse, baseball, softball and golf and tennis.

June 12, Florida passes its state law with a scheduled effective date of July 1, , that significantly decreases the time to create a uniform national solution. A similar group of national stars formed a week later and stated its intent to form a college football players' association in the future. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. NCAA antitrust lawsuit. Cory Booker, D-N. Emmert, the NCAA president, said he was "frustrated and disappointed" by the delay.

Chris Murphy, D-Conn. Lori Trahan, D-Mass. March 31, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Alston v. The players asked the NCAA to adopt a temporary blanket waiver that would allow all athletes to make money from endorsement deals next school year while more permanent decisions take shape.

The new proposal surfaced after a pair of Senate hearings in June made it clear that a federal law was not imminent. June 21, The Supreme Court rules against the NCAA in its appeal, issuing an opinion that dealt a significant blow to the organization's argument that it should receive special antitrust treatment because of its academic mission. The justice's ruling made it clear that NCAA restrictions -- including on NIL activity -- could face serious legal challenges in the future.

June 30, The NCAA's Board of Directors adopts a temporary rule change that opens the door for NIL activity, instructing schools to set their own policy for what should be allowed with minimal guidelines. Athletes start signing endorsements deals minutes after the clock strikes midnight. While several federal options have been proposed, it's becoming increasingly likely that state laws will start to go into effect before a nationwide change is made.

There are 28 states with NIL laws already in place and multiple others that are actively pursuing legislation. States with laws in place Alabama -- Passed: April Goes into effect: July 1, Arizona -- Passed: March Goes into effect: July 23, Arkansas - Passed: April Goes into effect: Jan.

California -- Passed: September Colorado -- Passed: March Connecticut -- Passed: June Florida -- Passed: June Georgia -- Passed: May Illinois -- Passed: June Kentucky -- Passed: June Louisiana -- Passed: July Maryland -- Passed: May In one phrase, he reached a conclusion many others had since the Supreme Court's Alston v.

NCAA ruling on June Bad decision after bad decision led the NCAA down this road. It could have legally challenged the first NIL laws in California and Florida with at least a hope of retaining is oversight over college athletics.

It could have engaged Congress earlier in order to get federal legislation passed that basically would oversee amateurism. But the NCAA did not do those things, and Emmert boldly performed one of the biggest hand offs in college athletics' history last week.

The conversation now is less about how it happened than what's next. It has diminishing traction now in eligibility and amateurism rulings. With so many benefits now allowed, the role of enforcement is lessened. In allowing schools to offer education-based benefits to athletes, the Supreme Court basically pushed the NCAA's influence down to the conferences. It has occurred to more than one stakeholder that taken to its logical end point, college athletics could eventually devolve into pay-for-play and unionization as conferences compete.

If decentralization occurs, then conferences could make their own rules. That might lessen legal liability, but left to their own devices, there would be a natural progression toward permissiveness. Regulation could become a competition. How can those conferences be trusted with the whole enchilada? Then everybody is going to spend that amount or something close to it.

Who is going to have a lowest standard? Well, everybody is going to have low standards. Another possible end point: In the future, those who support that free-for-all model would be in one division and those who lean more toward the current education-based model would be in another. A lot of this has become not only evident since the third week of June but more than possible. To many administrators, Emmert's remarks made formal in the moment what had been hinted at for years. All of it might take years to unwind, but given the whirlwind arrival of NIL, college athletics has to be on alert.

With less rules, isn't there the possibility for anarchy? Bowlsby suggested it. A lot of the arms race described above is going on now.