Questions and answers re: President Trump's College Sports Commission

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

First, a quick word from one of today’s sponsors:

700k+ men are using this to age like fine wine

Guys, neglecting your skin is like not brushing your teeth or washing your hair. But men’s skin is often tougher and more rugged than women’s, and requires a different kind of care. To accommodate this, Particle’s team extensively researched for two years to find the perfect formula with the planet’s best ingredients, backed by science.

• ✅ The 6-in-1 product helps reduce eye bags, dark spots, wrinkles, and sagging skin. Deeply soothes and moisturizes after shaving 

• 🏆 4.8-star rating, praised by Men’s Health as “the best skincare for firming skin”

• 🙌 Smells and feels great—absorbs quickly with no oily residue

• ✨ Easy to use with fast results. Backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee

Learn more about Particle here—save 22% with code EXTRA22

I feel like a gazillion other things happened last week, so I didn’t have time to give this development the time and space it deserves. President Trump is reportedly launching a college sports commission.

Presidents launch special commissions to study specific issues all the time. We’ve had them to study stuff like reforming the Supreme Court, Cybersecurity Policy, how to promote physical fitness, the HIV epidemic, and plenty of other policy issues over the last several decades.

The timing of this particular announcement is a bit of a surprise, since the NCAA, Power Conferences, Coaches Associations and other college sports industry trade groups have focused their efforts on lobbying Congress far more than the White House. In fact, FOS reports that lawmakers didn’t really know about the Trump Administration’s plans. But with legislative efforts still failing to produce a bill with a snowball’s chance of actually getting passed, even with Republican control of the House and Senate, maybe the president thought a little pressure from his corner would do some good.

What do we actually know about the commission so far?

We know who is going to chair it! Multiple outlets have reported that the commission will be led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban, and Texas billionaire and Texas Tech Board of Regents Chair Cody Campbell.

The actual and specific scope of the commission, as of Sunday evening, have not been specifically announced. Via Yahoo’s reporting, we know what some expected topics are:

Sure, anything that purports to dig into college sports reform is going to have to address those topics. But how much of this commission is going to be specifically centered around the concerns of college football vs. the rest of the college sports enterprise? How many people are going to be a part of the group, and what sorts of backgrounds will they represent? When is the group expected to formally meet, and when will their recommendations be due? Will Congress act before the commission finishes whatever report they’re expected to deliver?

All important questions, all still, at this moment, TBA.

Do we have an idea about what the commission might recommend?

I think we can make some very educated guesses.

Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player, might not be a household name to fans outside the Big 12 footprint, but he hasn’t been shy about his views on college sports. In a Jan 28 blog titled ‘Only Congress And The President Can Save College Sports’ for The Federalist, Campbell wrote,

The Sports Broadcasting Act note is worth highlighting, given how Sen. Cruz (R-TX) and other lawmakers have recently used that law to critique the NFL’s broadcast practices. This is also the law that would need to be changed if big time college sports is to ever follow a popular suggestion from private equity folks…combining the media rights contracts of all major college football contracts. As currently written, such moves might make everybody more money, but it would be super illegal.

That idea does not appear to be popular with Campbell. In a March 20 blog, also for the Federalist, he wrote,

Campbell appears to be very concerned about potential legal or legislative action that would reduce Olympic sport opportunities and the viability of smaller athletic programs. And hey, if the Big Ten and SEC are allowed to further tighten their grip on college sports governance, well, that’s bad news for Texas Tech.

Saban’s views are also pretty well documented. He supports federal legislation to create a national NIL standard, as well as a structure to preserve competitive balance.

Let Us Do The Heavy Lifting

Students have bigger things to worry about right now than moving, so don't bother with buying boxes, renting trucks, or coordinating move out logistics.

Here’s the deal:

• We bring boxes to your students

• We pick up everything from their room

• We keep it safe all summer

• We deliver it to their new place next semester, on or off campus

Storage Scholars handles everything you need to transition into summer break without breaking the bank.

Learn More

Is this thing a good idea? Can it create good recommendations?

I understand why many people might think this is a waste of time. Lord knows the history of college sports reform is full of “Blue Ribbon Committees” who produce long PDFs full of policy recommendations that are then summarily ignored.

But I don’t think the idea of a presidential commission to study collegiate sports issues is a bad idea. The Drake Group, a college sports reform organization that I think it is safe to say does not agree with Donald Trump on very much, has endorsed the idea of a presidential commission to study college athletics, similar to a commission formed in 1978 to reform the US Olympic system.

I personally think these groups are more valuable when there are no obvious policy solutions already floating around. A good idea, in my opinion, would be for a commission to study alternative forms to fund collegiate Olympic Sports programs in the event that they can no longer be subsidized at the same level by football and basketball profits. Do we move to a model similar to the rest of the developed world, where elite Olympic sport development is led by the national government? Do the armed forces play a role? Do we fund programs via sports gambling taxes? No idea. Sounds a great thing to study.

I doubt that’s what the President has in mind here.

If this ends up being a group of mostly ex-college football coaches, college football boosters, and people like Sen. Tuberville (R-AL), then I think the odds that it produces useful, or even interesting, recommendations are basically zero.

My assumption is this group, assuming it’s going to issue a report before the start of the college football season, will primarily serve to push lawmakers to support a bill that provides some sort of limited and conditional antitrust protection for the NCAA. I’m imagining some sort of bill that allows the NCAA to enforce some NIL restrictions and that codifies the non-employee status of college athletes, in exchange for some codification of athlete medical care benefits, insurance, and scholarship guarantees.

Essentially, the bulk of what the conversations have been between Cruz, Sen. Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Coons (D-DE), Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Moran (R-KS).

Of course, the White House could decide it’s bored with all of that and try to force the issue themselves later on. That’s also something the NCAA (and everybody else) ought to prepare for.

I debated making a joke post, suggesting the sorts of folks that Trump could add to this thing. Nevin Shapiro! John Ruiz! Major Ohio State donor Les Wexner! Marco Rubio! You get the idea.

And sure, maybe this thing gets staffed with disgraced boosters, ideological sycophants and policy lightweights.

But I hope it isn’t. I suspect that is Congress doesn’t put a bill together before this group is finished, Republican congressmen will advance a bill that closely mirrors whatever this group recommends. The more serious and smart people on the committee, the better chance we get of better policy.

Maybe the timing on all of this doesn’t work out. Dan Wolken at USA TODAY raises a good point, I think, in that Trump’s more direct involvement will make it much harder for any Senate Democrat to participate in this process, even if they largely agree with the policy goals.

But maybe it does. I can’t accurately predict the political future, and I especially can’t do that these days. If I could, this newsletter would cost a hell of a lot more money than nine bucks for a premium subscription.

Still lots of unanswered questions. We’ll see just how serious the White House is about all of this in the coming days.