Saturday, February 27, 2021

San Jose State athletic trainer Shaw responsible for sexual misconduct

San Jose State athletic trainer Shaw responsible for sexual misconduct

Former San Jose State U top trainer found responsible for sexual misconduct in state probe

San Jose State University

San Jose State University's longtime sports medicine director, who resigned in August amid reports he sexually abused female athletes more than a decade ago, has been found responsible for at least five of those women's claims in a series of state Title IX investigations.

The investigations, conducted by private attorneys under the supervision of the California State University System, determined that Scott Shaw's physical therapy treatments lacked medical basis, ignored proper protocols and violated the system's sexual harassment policies.

The findings were issued Friday morning in separate letters to the women. There were at least 10 investigations in all – one for each complainant – all of which might have come to different conclusions. Shounak Dharap, an attorney who represents some of the athletes, told USA TODAY on Friday he was aware of at least five that have resulted in findings of responsibility, adding that he expected to receive more. 

Several of the athletes FaceTimed each other after receiving the news.

"There was an overwhelming sense of relief," said former swimmer Linzy Warkentin, one of the five athletes, who first reported Shaw's conduct to the school in 2009. "We had tears and laughs. Tonight there will be celebratory drinks. We have been waiting for this for over a year and finally, we are officially acknowledged."

In April, USA TODAY reported on the allegations against Shaw for the first time publicly. Reporters interviewed four of the 17 swimming and diving athletes who in 2009 said Shaw touched them inappropriately, as well as a water polo athlete and a gymnastics athlete who competed around that time and described similar touching by Shaw. 

The university had reviewed the swimmers' claims in 2010 but cleared Shaw of wrongdoing, saying that his treatments – which he'd described to the athletes as "pressure point" or "trigger point" therapy – constituted a scientific and accepted method of treatment for muscle injuries.

Shaw was never disciplined, arrested or charged, and he remained in his position as sports medicine director for the next 10 years, during which time he continued to treat female athletes.

The CSU System began its investigation in December 2019, after SJSU women's swim coach Sage Hopkins re-reported the allegations.

In addition to interviewing many of the former athletes, state investigators heard testimony from two current Spartans who described inappropriate touching by Shaw.

One of the current athletes told investigators that Shaw in 2017 massaged her breasts, without explanation, under the guise of "pressure point therapy." Another said Shaw grazed her breast and placed his hands on her buttocks on separate occasions in late 2019 and early 2020. Both said Shaw's treatments were unlike any they'd received from other SJSU athletic trainers. Their allegations are similar to those made by the swimmers a decade ago. 

Shaw came to San Jose State in 2006 and took over as its director of sports medicine in 2008, a position he held until his departure in August. In April, San Jose State told USA TODAY that it had received no new complaints against Shaw since 2009.

The current athletes' testimony shows that Shaw's inappropriate treatments continued well after the university's internal 2010 investigation.

In a statement to USA TODAY, San Jose State spokesperson Christine Hutchins said the university will review the findings, which she said are not yet final until the appeals process has concluded. In the meantime, she said, the university is contacting those who were involved in the investigation to provide supportive services and help them obtain resources.

SJSU President Mary "Papazian and the university remain steadfast in their commitment to providing a safe, learning environment that is dedicated to the success of its students and will continue to take appropriate and necessary steps," Hutchins said in the statement.

Shaw declined to participate in the CSU investigation, records show. He previously denied any wrongdoing through his attorney, Lori Costanzo, who did not respond to an email seeking comment. Shaw has 10 working days to appeal the outcome.

James Borchers, a physician and president of the U.S. Council for Athlete's Health who served as an expert witness in the investigation, determined Shaw's treatments were "improper" and "questionable in the most conservative manner," according to a copy of the preliminary findings report from November obtained by USA TODAY. Borchers added that they "raise a significant suspicion for inappropriate behavior."

According to Borchers' testimony, Shaw disregarded normal procedures by failing to explain, justify, properly document and obtain informed consent for his treatments, which he performed without offering a chaperone and without proper oversight, certification and training. Additionally, Borchers said massaging the breast and groin area is generally inappropriate absent clear medical circumstances necessitating such contact, and it is "not ethical to reach under clothing in a sensitive area in any situation."

"In conclusion, there is no reasonable evidence or explanation for the actions of the athletic trainer described in this report," Borchers wrote in a four-page analysis. "The treatments, behavior of the athletic trainer and consistent pattern associated with both as described by the student-athletes are at the very least unethical and disturbing."

Coach never gave up

For many of the athletes, the ruling is more than a decade overdue.

Seventeen athletes reported Shaw's conduct to their coach in late 2009, records show, when they were members of San Jose State's women's swimming and diving team and Shaw was the team's primary trainer.

Records obtained by USA TODAY show their coach, Hopkins, gathered 17 swimmers' accounts of inappropriate touching and reported them to officials in San Jose State's athletic department, broader administration and campus police.

One of the former swimmers who testified against Shaw was a minor – 17 years old – at the time she said Shaw first touched her inappropriately in 2009. Hopkins later filed a report for alleged child abuse by Shaw, but no action appears to have been taken in response.

Despite the university's clearing Shaw of wrongdoing, Hopkins never stopped voicing his concerns. He routinely complained to campus officials and tried to keep his athletes away from Shaw, who still sometimes treated them without Hopkins' knowledge, records show.

SJSU reopened a second investigation into Shaw in December 2019, after Hopkins circulated a nearly 300-page document among university, Mountain West and NCAA officials that detailed the allegations, the school's response, and his claims of retaliation against him and his team for reporting and re-reporting them.

That Shaw has finally been held responsible is a "a good step in the right direction," said Caitlin Macky, one of the former swimmers who reported Shaw in 2009, while noting that there had been "far too many casualties along the way."

"I'm so thankful for Sage Hopkins and the perseverance he showed in advocating for all student-athletes, not just his own," Macky told USA TODAY. "And it is my opinion that he deserves an immediate apology from the university."

Fallout and more investigations

In August, Shaw wrote in an email to members of the athletic department, which USA TODAY obtained, saying that he was retiring and planning to leave the school later that month. San Jose State quietly removed his name from the staff directory, and in response to questions from USA TODAY said Shaw had resigned.

A month later, a former top athletic department official filed a tort claim notice with the CSU System alleging that athletic department administrators engaged in a pattern of covering up misconduct by SJSU staff and students and retaliating against those who reported it.

Steve O'Brien, who served as the No. 2 in the athletic department, said in the claim that he was fired in March because he resisted orders from athletic director Marie Tuite to discipline Hopkins and one other employee. O'Brien believed the orders against Hopkins constituted retaliation for his re-reporting of the allegations, which prompted the investigation into Shaw to be reopened. Hopkins also accused Tuite of downplaying and helping cover up the allegations over the years.

Last month, a separate investigation by the CSU System found Tuite responsible for retaliating against Hopkins by directing his supervisor to give him a low rating on his 2020 performance review because of his reporting the allegations to outside entities, according to a copy of the investigation notice issued by the CSU System on Jan. 15 and obtained by USA TODAY. 

Tuite has the opportunity to appeal the finding. She did not return a phone message Friday seeking comment.

The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division also is investigating the university's handling of the allegations in 2010, four people who have spoken with the investigators told USA TODAY. The people described the topics they discussed under the condition of anonymity out of concern for jeopardizing an ongoing legal matter. Sportico first reported on the existence of the investigation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation also launched a criminal probe into Shaw's conduct, two people who have spoken with investigators confirmed. They spoke to USA TODAY anonymously for the same reasons. The FBI's press office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.



Sent from my iPhone

Appeals committee upholds violations and show-cause order for former Georgia Tech assistant basketball coach | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

Appeals committee upholds violations and show-cause order for former Georgia Tech assistant basketball coach | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

Appeals committee upholds violations and show-cause order for former Georgia Tech assistant basketball coach

Download the Feb. 2021 Georgia Tech Former Assist. Men's Baskeball Coach Public Appeals Decision

The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee upheld its finding that a former assistant men's basketball coach at Georgia Tech violated ethical conduct rules. The former assistant coach must serve a three-year show-cause order, according to the decision.

In the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions' decision regarding Georgia Tech, the panel found the former assistant coach arranged contact with a booster at the school who provided impermissible benefits to both the recruit and a host student-athlete. The former assistant coach also violated ethical conduct rules when he did not cooperate with the investigation by first denying that he had arranged the impermissible activity with the booster and then trying to convince the host student-athlete to lie about what happened. In addition to other penalties, the panel prescribed a three-year show-cause order for the former assistant coach.

In his appeal, the former assistant coach argued the findings should be set aside because the facts presented to the Committee on Infractions panel did not constitute a violation of ethical conduct rules. He also argued the show-cause order should be reduced.

In an effort to demonstrate the appealed findings were contrary to the information presented to the panel, the former assistant coach said there were inconsistencies in information provided during interviews, and he challenged the credibility of individuals.

In its response to the appeal, the Committee on Infractions said the panel found that testimony provided by other individuals was credible and corroborated in other interviews.

In its decision, the Infractions Appeals Committee stated that to demonstrate a violation is contrary to the information presented, an appealing individual or school must show more than an alternate reading or application of the information exists. The appeals committee continued that the former assistant coach failed to demonstrate that the information in the case record which he used to challenge the credibility of the witnesses and support his narrative clearly outweighed the information used by the Committee on Infractions to support the unethical conduct violation.

Finally, the former assistant coach said he did not seek NCAA employment during the infractions process. He argued that his show-cause order should be reduced because the imposition of the show-cause penalty occurred 21 months after the investigation was completed, and he should receive credit for "time served." He also argued that the case was improperly classified as a Level I-Standard case. However, the appeals committee said the Committee on Infractions panel followed its standard practice in prescribing the three-year show-cause penalty to begin on the date the infractions decision is released. Additionally, the appeals committee did not find that the panel abused its discretion when it weighed or considered aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the classification of this case for the former assistant coach. Thus, the committee affirmed the penalty.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were Jonathan Alger, president at James Madison; Ellen M. Ferris, associate commissioner for governance and compliance at the American Athletic Conference; W. Anthony Jenkins, acting committee chair of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee and attorney in private practice; Patricia Ohlendorf, retired vice president for legal affairs at Texas; and Allison Rich, senior associate athletics director and senior woman administrator at Princeton.



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, February 25, 2021

Jorden McCormick. Spring 2021 article - Former U.S. Olympic Coach John Geddert Has Died By Suicide

Former U.S. Olympic Coach John Geddert Has Died By Suicide

Former U.S. Olympic Coach Has Died By Suicide

A general photo of the Olympic Rings with the torch in the background.SOCHI, RUSSIA - JANUARY 27: The Olympic Cauldron is tested by fire crews at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Park in the Costal Cluster on January 27, 2014 in Sochi, Russia. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Former U.S. women's gymnastics coach John Geddert died by suicide this afternoon, hours after being charged with multiple felonies.

Geddert, who worked closely with disgraced former Team USA doctor and convicted sex offender Larry Nassar, was charged earlier today in Michigan with physically, emotionally and sexually abusing athletes.

At the time of his death he faced 24 felonies:  20 counts of human trafficking and forced labor, one count of first-degree sexual assault, one count of second-degree sexual assault, racketeering and lying to a police officer.

"John Geddert used force, fraud and coercion against the young athletes that came to him for gymnastics training for financial benefit to him," Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said during a news conference this afternoon.

Geddert coached the U.S. women's gymnastics team during the 2012 Olympics in London. Several gymnasts accused Nassar of sexually abusing them at Geddert's gym in Michigan.

John Geddert's attorney's office confirmed that the former Olympic coach is dead. He was scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon. https://t.co/wZaMpz5Wbn

— Dan Murphy (@DanMurphyESPN) February 25, 2021

Attorney General Dana Nessel confirms that Geddert's death was by suicide.

"My office has been notified that the body of John Geddert was found late this afternoon after taking his own life. This is a tragic end to a tragic story for everyone involved."

— Dan Murphy (@DanMurphyESPN) February 25, 2021

Geddert had long been regarded as an "enabler" of Nassar's. Clearly, he was accused of his own misconduct as well and likely faced significant jail time if convicted.

He opted not to stick around and find out if that would happen.



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, February 21, 2021

2021 California Bill Text - AB-609 College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act.

Bill Text - AB-609 College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act.

CHAPTER  3. The college athlete race and gender equity act

SECTION 1.

 Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 67470) is added to Part 40.3 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, to read:

67470.
 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) Data clearly shows that college athletes of color in the sports of football and men's basketball have graduated at rates lower than those of other students, other athletes, and their teammates.

(2) Scholars have concluded that Black college athletes as a group often experience educational neglect due to a range of issues, including the lack of adequate academic learning support, practices associated with maintaining athletic eligibility instead of academic advancement, academic clustering, and limitations placed on course selections and academic majors.

(3) In March 2018, the University of Southern California Race and Equity Center, released a report that 40 percent of the universities studied reported a decline in graduation rates for Black male athletes between 2016 and 2018, inclusive.

(4) California's Football Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men and women basketball players are predominantly Black, and are the only college athletes in the state who do not receive at least 50 percent of the revenue that they produce.

(5) Data taken from the federal Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092) and the National Center for Education Statistics for the academic year 2018–2019 shows that, after accounting for an average full athletic scholarship of forty-five thousand one hundred forty-three dollars ($45,143), the average California Football Bowl Subdivision football player and men's and women's basketball player would have needed an additional one hundred twenty-nine thousand three hundred eighty dollars ($129,380), one hundred seven thousand two hundred ninety-six dollars ($107,296), and fifteen thousand one hundred three dollars ($15,103), respectively, to receive 50 percent of the revenue that they produced.

(6) Excessive athletic program expenditures on salaries, administration, and facilities are not necessary to field intercollegiate athletics and should be partially redirected to address racial and gender-based inequities endured by college athletes.

(b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student's name, image, and likeness and revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the act that added this chapter.

(2) It is the further intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

67471.
 For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(a) "Athletic program" means an intercollegiate athletic program at an institution of higher education. Club and intramural programs are excluded.

(b) "College athlete" means a college or university student who participates in an athletic program in the state.

(c) "Institution of higher education" means a public or private four-year college or university located in the state, or a public or private two-year college located in the state that maintains an athletic program.

(d) "Operating expenses" means game-day expenses, as reported by institutions of higher education to the United States Department of Education.

(e) "Qualifying college athlete" means an athlete receiving a grant-in-aid athletic scholarship for a sport described in subdivision (c) of Section 67472.

67472.
 (a) A name, image, and likeness royalty fee shall be paid by each institution of higher education whose college athletes receive a grant-in-aid athletics scholarship in their respective sport.

(b) Subdivision (a) applies to all institutions of higher education with sports designated as members of NCAA Division I, the Football Championship Subdivision, or the Football Bowl Subdivision, in which 50 percent of the institution's total sports revenue in the state, as reported to the United States Department of Education, exceeds the total aggregate grant-in-aid athletic scholarships amount provided to the institution's college athletes in that sport, within the division or subdivision, during a reporting year.

(c) The name, image, and likeness royalty fee amount for a college athlete shall be determined for each sport, and division or subdivision, by subtracting the total aggregate grant-in-aid athletic scholarships amount provided to the institution's college athletes in a sport from 50 percent of the institution's total sports revenue in the state, as reported to the United States Department of Education. That difference shall be divided by the total number of college athletes receiving a grant-in-aid athletic scholarship in that sport during the reporting year. The resulting quotient shall be the name, image and likeness royalty fee amount that will be distributed to a college athlete pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 67473.

(d) Name, image, and likeness royalty fees shall be deposited into an institution's Royalty Fee Distribution Fund, established under Section 67473, on or before January 15 of each year.

(e) An institution of higher education shall make public, and provide to its college athletes, all sport-specific revenue data, including name, image, and likeness royalty fee calculations and payments, on or before January 15 of each year.

67473.
 (a) An institution of higher education required to pay a name, image, and likeness royalty fee pursuant to Section 67472 shall deposit the fee into a Royalty Fee Distribution Fund that the institution shall establish on or after January 1, 2022.

(b) From the Royalty Fee Distribution Fund established pursuant to subdivision (a), an institution of higher education shall distribute a name, image, and likeness royalty fee to each qualifying college athlete in the amount determined pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 67472. A public institution of higher education shall only distribute a name, image, and likeness royalty fee to a qualifying college athlete upon appropriation by the Legislature.

(c) A name, image, and likeness royalty fee distributed to a college athlete pursuant to this chapter shall not be considered financial aid, shall not cause a college athlete's financial aid to be reduced, and does not establish or constitute evidence of an employment relationship between the college athlete and their institution of higher education.

67474.
 Each institution of higher education shall comply with Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.), as it applies to college athletics by doing all of the following:

(a) Monitoring and providing publicly available evaluations of its compliance with Title IX.

(b) Designating an employee as the Title IX coordinator, providing the designee with appropriate Title IX training, and making the designee's name and contact information publicly available and known to its college athletes.

(c) Suspending an athletic director from intercollegiate athletics responsibilities in the state for three years if Title IX compliance is not achieved on or before January 1, 2025, and maintained for at least 6 months in each 12-month period after January 1, 2025.

(d) Preserving each athletic program's college athletes' educational opportunities and grant-in-aid athletic scholarship amounts to the greatest extent possible. All other available and prudent athletic program cost-cutting options shall be implemented before, or simultaneously with, any reduction in college athletes' aggregate unduplicated participation numbers or grant-in-aid athletic scholarship amounts, as reported to the United States Department of Education.

67475.
 (a) An institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status shall not compensate athletics administrative personnel in an amount that exceeds 50 percent of the average total intercollegiate athletics administrative personnel compensation expenses incurred in 2019 among institutions of higher education that belonged to the Football Championship Subdivision of the NCAA. An institution of higher education's total intercollegiate athletics administrative personnel compensation expenses limit shall increase by 3 percent per year.

(b) (1) An institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status shall not enter into a contract from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2032, inclusive, for new facility expenditures, including upgrades, related to intercollegiate athletics unless the facility expenditure is necessary for matters of health and safety, would result in a net benefit to the environment, or is necessary to ensure compliance Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.).

(2) The prohibition described in paragraph (1) does not apply to facility repair and maintenance expenses.

(c) An institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status, shall not incur in a fiscal year sport-specific operating expenses that exceed 75 percent of the average sport-specific operating expenses per participant in its division or subdivision, as reported in 2019.

67476.
 (a) The provisions of this chapter are severable. If any provision of this chapter or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

(b) A college athlete who is harmed by violations of this chapter has the right to a private action against a violator.



Sent from my iPhone

California bill requires direct NIL payments from schools to athletes

California bill requires direct NIL payments from schools to athletes

Saturday Night Five: California bill focused on college athletes' rights would radically impact Pac-12 schools

AB-609 calls for direct royalty payments from schools to athletes

Reaction to Pac-12 developments on and off the field (special edition) …

1. Those crazy Californians

Almost two years to the day after the groundbreaking 'Fair Pay To Play Act' was introduced into the California state assembly, another bill focused on the rights of college athletes has entered the legislative pipeline in Sacramento.

Say hello to AB-609 — "The College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act."

It's not merely groundbreaking. It prevents breaking ground, literally.

The bill requires California universities to pay football and men's basketball players tens of millions of dollars in royalties for the use of their name, image and likeness.

One of the stipulations in AB-609 would bar universities from building athletic facilities (locker rooms, weight rooms, arenas, etc.) just to keep up with their peers.

Another stipulation would force universities to suspend athletic directors for three years if their departments fall out of compliance with Title IX.

Overall, AB-609 is a whopper — progressive to the point of radical, punitive to the point of debilitating and, in sections, deeply confusing.

And yes: It requires name, image and likeness payments from schools to athletes even though the NCAA has already approved NIL compensation for athletes from the private sector. (Implementation is awaiting oversight from Congress.)

"The bill is saying that NIL isn't enough just going through the private industry," said a source who has read AB-609, "so the schools that exceed the benchmarks cited in there would have to give that money back."

According to the bill, a so-called Royalty Fund would be established by Jan. 1, 2022:

"From the Royalty Fee Distribution Fund established … an institution of higher education shall distribute a name, image, and likeness royalty fee to each qualifying college athlete in the amount determined."

2. Echoing #WeAreUnited

The bill was introduced Feb. 12 by Assembly Member Sydney Kamlager, whose 54th district includes Culver City, Century City and … wait for it … Westwood.

UCLA so happens to be the alma mater of Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association and the silent force behind the #WeAreUnited players movement.

Neither Huma, who's aligned with the Steelworkers, or the NCPA itself are mentioned in AB-609.

But in many ways, the bill is an extension of the radical requests made in the #WeAreUnited manifesto that was signed by Pac-12 football players last summer.

That document included calls for enhanced health and safety measures for athletes and an economic overhaul of Pac-12 athletic departments, including this demand:

"Distribute 50% of each sport's total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports."

(You can imagine how that was received. predictably, it went nowhere.)

The core tenant of AB-609 requires NIL royalty payments based on a formula that includes total revenue generated and the amount spent on scholarships:

"This bill would require institutions of higher education with sports in which 50% of the institution's total sports revenue in the state exceeds the total aggregate grant-in-aid athletics scholarship amount provided to the institution's college athletes in the sport during the reporting year to pay a (NIL) royalty fee to each qualifying college athlete, as specified."

The bill doesn't explain revenue "in the state."

Does that mean only tickets purchased by California residents, or donations from alumni living in the state?

And what about media rights? ESPN is located in Bristol, Conn.

3. Counting the cash

The bill goes on to sketch the formula for determining the royalty payments to the athletes:

"The (NIL) royalty fee amount for a college athlete shall be determined for each sport, and division or subdivision, by subtracting the total aggregate grant-in-aid athletic scholarships amount provided to the institution's college athletes in a sport from 50 percent of the institution's total sports revenue in the state … That difference shall be divided by the total number of college athletes receiving a grant-in-aid athletic scholarship in that sport during the reporting year."

It's murky, for sure. But let's take our best guess at how the royalty payments might be calculated using Cal as an example.

(Yes, private schools would be subject to the bill's requirements, just like the public universities.)

In the 2020 fiscal year, the Cal football program generated $39 million, according to the university's NCAA financial report.

Meanwhile, the Bears spent $3.6 million in student aid for football.

Subtract that aid from 50 percent of the revenue ($19.5) million, and the Bears seemingly would be required to allocate $15.9 million to the royalty fund.

With 85 scholarship players, that's $187,058 per player, per year.

Kamlager, who introduced the bill, was not available for comment.

4. Apparent contradiction

The Hotline sought feedback from two industry sources who have read the bill — both are familiar with the NCAA legislative process and the economics of a major college athletic department.

One source pointed immediately to what appears to be a contradiction:

The 'Fair Pay To Play' law that takes effect in California in 2022 (if not sooner) doesn't allow schools to compensate athletes directly for NIL.

Instead, it prevents schools from interfering in payments to athletes from the private sector.

"That's designed to keep the schools out of it,'' the source said.

Regarding the direct university-to-athlete payment plan in AB-609, the source added: "Does the state legislature have the power to tell the universities where to put their money?"

Both sources questioned the ability of the state to determine whether a university could punish its employee (the three-year suspension of athletic directors) over the handling of federal law (Title IX).

The sources also questioned the ability of the state to prevent a university from conducting facility projects.

Here's the language on that issue in AB-609:

"An institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status shall not enter into a contract from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2032, inclusive, for new facility expenditures, including upgrades, related to intercollegiate athletics unless the facility expenditure is necessary for matters of health and safety, would result in a net benefit to the environment, or is necessary to ensure compliance Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972."

Notably, the bill acknowledges that its provisions might be flawed:

"The provisions of this chapter are severable. If any provision of this chapter or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application."

5. The impact

The implications of AB-609 are enormous.

If it became law, then Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA would be effectively paying salaries — potentially more than $100,000 per player, even for second stringers — while other teams in the conference, and across the country, could not.

"If enacted in this form," the second source said, "it would become infeasible to compete nationally."

The 'Fair Pay To Play' law sparked sweeping change, as state after state followed California's lead and eventually forced the NCAA to adopt NIL compensation.

Would AB-609 do the same? That could be exactly Kamlager's intent.

The NIL legislation currently in the pipeline — it could be implemented later this year — creates a means for athletes to receive compensation without legally becoming employees.

But with AB-609, the money would come directly from the schools to their athletes. Would that change their status?

The bill says no — the royalty payments would not "establish or constitute evidence of an employment relationship between the college athlete and their institution of higher education."

But if the starting quarterback is collecting $150,000 directly from his university, he has to be something.

And that money would surely be taxed.

Also, the royalty payments wouldn't be available to all athletes, and that's potentially problematic:

Women's basketball programs are money losers — even Oregon, with all-everything guard Sabrina Ionescu, lost $2.5 million in FY20.

But if a women's basketball team met the revenue threshold outlines in AB-609, the players would be compensated for NIL.

Meanwhile, softball and baseball players, whose programs also lose money, would receive nothing.

The vast majority of the NIL royalty funds, of course, would be funneled to football, which generates the vast majority of athletic revenue.

But a star tailback receiving compensation from the private sector is much different than the model outlined in AB-609.

"The optics of increased institutional support to fund royalty payments to football players is a non-starter,'' one source said.

Imagine Sacramento dictating that Cal, USC, Stanford and UCLA make six-figure payments to their players.

"Some of the schools would just say, 'We're out,''' a source said.


Support the Hotline: Several Hotline articles will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you'll need to subscribe. I've secured a rate of $1 per week for a full year or just 99 cents for the first month, with the option to cancel anytime. Click here. And thanks for your loyalty.


*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Overwhelming Majority Of Players In Transfer Portal Have Not Landed Offers – OutKick

Overwhelming Majority Of Players In Transfer Portal Have Not Landed Offers – OutKick

Overwhelming Majority Of Players In Transfer Portal Have Not Landed Offers

What happens when the NCAA gives football players an extra year of eligibility due to COVID, transfer portal free agency and an incoming freshman class of new bodies ready to grind it out for a scholarship? You have college football players without scholarships looking for a home.

According to Keith Grabowski, host of The Coach & Coordinator podcast, an astounding 72% of the players in the 2021 transfer portal do not have a home. Out of 1,074 players in the portal, just 299 (28%) have a school to attend on scholarship in 2021. According to 247's unofficial transfer portal tracker — since the NCAA doesn't allow us to see the actual portal — there are currently 126 quarterbacks in the 2021 transfer portal.

Add in a 25-man signing limit for NCAA member schools, and you have limited spaces available for transferring players.

Sports Illustrated reports though that the numbers may be skewed by walk-ons, who are also allowed to enter the transfer portal. "As of [late January], only 964 of the 1,500 FBS players in the portal garnered a recruiting ranking from 247Sports (a vast majority of the other 500 are walk-ons)," SI's Ross Dellenger notes.

What happens to a majority of the players who do find a school? Most drop down a level. "Of the 299 Power Five players who have committed to a new school, 60% took a step down in level, their next destination a Group of Five or FCS school," Dellenger writes.

Maybe the transfer portal isn't a good thing pic.twitter.com/BoDEHTuTk6

— Coach Keith Grabowski 🏈Coach&Coordinator Podcast (@CoachKGrabowski) February 12, 2021

Coaches have been predicting players will have nowhere to go and that appears to be happening sooner rather than later. Pete Thamel wrote in December that players using their COVID year are going to push out younger players who will further bloat the portal. Teams will be limited to the 85-scholarship and the 25-man incoming freshman limit. Do the math.

"I do think there are a lot of guys who'll end up holding the bag without a place to go," said Rivals.com Southeast recruiting analyst Woody Wommack told Yahoo!. "You have the class of 2021 signing, the most transfers ever and a senior class that isn't going anywhere. That's made it really cloudy."

One Group of Five head coach painted a clear picture for parents out there: "If your son is in high school and he has a 2022 scholarship offer, he should commit right now."

At this point, it appears that a vast majority of players who entered the 2021 transfer portal will have a serious problem finding the funding to attend a new school, and many run the risk of not playing football at all.

"I feel really bad for the 2021-22 high school kids," an NCAA Division I football assistant coach told FootballScoop.com. "The COVID-19 impact and extra year of eligibility made it very difficult, and now adding the (expected) first year of NCAA free agency to that as well makes it the hardest time ever to be that 'tweener' kid.

"Extending the scholarship limits sounds great, but there's maybe 20 schools in all of college football that could (financially) carry the burden of 25 extra scholarships for a period reaching possibly up to five years."

NCAA quarterbacks in the 2021 transfer portal, according to 247:

  1. McKenzie Milton
  2. Austin Kendall
  3. Tate Martell
  4. Ryan Hilinski
  5. Ja'Quinden Jackson
  6. Jarrett Guarantano
  7. Jacob Sirmon
  8. Ethan Garbers
  9. Dylan McCaffrey
  10. Tyler Shough
  11. Chris Robison
  12. N'Kosi Perry
  13. Jawon Pass
  14. Patrick O'Brien
  15. Cord Sandberg
  16. Kasim Hill
  17. Garrett Shrader
  18. Tanner Mordecai
  19. Luke McCaffrey
  20. Jake Bentley
  21. James Foster
  22. Quincy Patterson
  23. Lance LeGendre
  24. D'Wan Mathis
  25. Peter Parrish
  26. James Graham
  27. Jace Ruder
  28. Grant Tisdale
  29. Jalen Mayden
  30. Hendon Hooker
  31. Cale Millen
  32. Micah Bowens
  33. Grant Gunnell
  34. Ty Evans
  35. Chandler Morris
  36. James Blackman
  37. Chase Brice
  38. Terry Wilson
  39. Sam Johnson
  40. Bailey Hockman
  41. Jack Coan
  42. J.T. Shrout
  43. Will Levis
  44. Kevaris Thomas
  45. Tee Webb
  46. Ben Bryant
  47. Rocky Lombardi
  48. Eli Williams
  49. Gunner Cruz
  50. Tyler Lytle
  51. Woody Barrett
  52. David Baldwin-Griffin
  53. Anthony Russo
  54. Alan Bowman
  55. Tucker Gleason
  56. Taylor Powell
  57. Jason Shelley
  58. Chris Katrenick
  59. Keon Howard
  60. Kade Renfro
  61. Charlie Brewer
  62. Stone Norton
  63. Darriel Mack
  64. Nik Scalzo
  65. Kaiden Bennett
  66. Devon Modster
  67. Kennique Bonner-Steward
  68. Kenyon Oblad
  69. Sheldon Layman
  70. Jakson Thomson
  71. RJ Harvey Jr.
  72. Stephon Brown
  73. Markevion Quinn
  74. Messiah deWeaver
  75. Clifton McDowell
  76. Jordan McCloud
  77. Asher O'Hara
  78. Jack Abraham
  79. TJ Goodwin
  80. Danny Clark
  81. Ryan Glover
  82. Parker McNeil
  83. Carson Baker
  84. Jeremiah Oatsvall
  85. Colby Suits
  86. Isaac Stiebeling
  87. Rhett Rodriguez
  88. Logan Holgorsen
  89. Marckell Grayson
  90. Isaiah Green
  91. Jason Bean
  92. Michael Bonds
  93. Chance Lovertich
  94. Carson Welch
  95. Andrew Brito
  96. Fred Payton
  97. Jack Smith
  98. Shai Werts
  99. Ben Wooldridge
  100. Jake Simmons
  101. Logan Bonner
  102. Mark Salazar
  103. Connor Adair
  104. Jason Brown
  105. Davis Shanley
  106. Devin Larsen
  107. Nick Moore
  108. Michael McFarlane
  109. John Bledsoe
  110. Chris Ferguson
  111. Vincent Amendola
  112. Nick Ast
  113. Jake Constantine
  114. Jack Dawson
  115. Westin Elliott
  116. Terrance Gipson
  117. Darren Grainger
  118. Drew Gunther
  119. Will Heckman
  120. Jack Kristofek
  121. Jack Lindsey
  122. Johnathan Mosley
  123. John Seter
  124. Colton Taylor
  125. Greyson Thompson
  126. Bailey Zappe


Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Associate/Assistant Athletic Director - Business Operations - HigherEdJobs

Associate/Assistant Athletic Director - Business Operations - HigherEdJobs

Associate/Assistant Athletic Director - Business Operations

Application Due:

Open Until Filled

Category: Administrative/Staff

Department: Athletics

Locations: Springfield, MA

Closes: Open Until Filled

Type: Full-time

Ref. No.: 2776

Position ID: 128319

About American International College:

American International College is a private, coeducational institution of higher education located on a 70+ acre campus in Springfield, Massachusetts. The campus has 42 buildings on two sites approximately 1/2 mile apart with a total of approximately 660,000 gross square feet. Included in the inventory of buildings are student residences for a resident population of 900 students. Founded in 1885, the College has approximately 3200 graduate and undergraduate students. AIC offers a variety of undergraduate and graduate programs through the Schools of Business, Arts and Sciences; Health Sciences; and Education. The mission of the College is to transform student lives through career focused learning, with a strong foundation in the liberal arts, a commitment to serving the community, and a high level of involvement in the global economy.

AIC strives to create a diverse and inclusive campus community that is representative, at all job levels, of the students we serve. We are an EEO employer and we welcome applications from individuals for positions where they are underrepresented.

Job Description:

  • Manage the daily fiscal functions of the athletic department with direct oversight of accounting and NCAA reporting, auditing, control procedures and policies, providing the Director of Athletics with frequent updates and assessments of new and ongoing financial issues.

  • Coordinate logistics within the athletic department.  This includes, but is not limited to, the integration of information, vendor relationships, transportation, fundraising, purchasing, and contracts to ensure financial and administrative stability in an efficient, effective manner.

  • Sport oversight responsibilities, which includes, but is not limited to, routine meetings with head coaches to discuss day to day responsibilities, triage problems; performance evaluations of head coaching staff; ensure head coaches goals and job responsibilities are being met, and support and guide in strategic planning for the program.

  • Review and revise department fiscal policies and control procedures as required to comply with department, campus, conference and NCAA policies and requirements in addition to standard accounting procedures.  Develop department level financial processes, training, and education to ensure compliance with policies and procedures.

  • Manage and organize all athletics revenue, including all ticket sales, NCAA/conference reimbursements, guarantees, facility rentals, and fundraising.

  • Perform internal audits and monitor organizational performance including necessary checks and balances on financial function activities to ensure controls are operating as designed.

  • Work closely with the payroll and HR department as well as the athletics department staff in the coordination of human resource functions and payroll matters including recruitment, hiring, and camps/clinics, in addition to ensuring compliance with college policies and procedures within the athletic department.

  • Generate the annual athletics budget, long-range fiscal and strategic planning and assist in capital financing while working closely with the Budget and Planning department.

  • Promote a positive image of the athletics program and the College by participating in community and professional organizations and representing the College as a spokesperson at appropriate events, professional meetings, campus committees and in community activities as appropriate.

  • Approve team-by-team independent game requests in accordance to fiscal policy, in addition to management and coordination of all game/practice scheduling for all athletic facilities (Internal Scheduling).

  • Arrange annual professional development initiatives for all athletics staff members. 

  • Budget and orchestrate all preseason, intersession, and spring break meals for all participating teams; work with the dining commons to make sure a proper checks & balances have been made for each meal prior to the start of each academic break. 

  • Contribute to the overall success of the athletics program by willingly performing all other duties and responsibilities as assigned by the Director of Athletics.

Requirements:

  • Required Degree(s): Bachelor's degree

  • Preferred Degree(s): Master's degree

  • Required Field of Expertise: Financial Operations, Internal Operations

  • Preferred Field of Expertise: Higher Education; Athletics; demonstrated internal controls expertise

Knowledge/Skills/Abilities

  • Ability to write reports, business correspondence and presentations.  Ability to effectively present information and respond to questions from students, parents, vendors, and the general public.

  • Gives and welcomes feedback.  Able to build morale and group commitments to goals and objectives.

  • Experience in finance, budget and policy development.

  • Strong interpersonal and communication skills.

  • Impeccable analytical and organizational skills, with the ability to communicate with a diverse campus population.

  • Knowledge of the NCAA policies and requirements is a plus.

Additional Information:

Work Schedule

This is a full time, exempt level, benefits eligible position. Normal office hours are 8:30am - 4:30pm,  flexible to the needs of the department. Evening, weekend, and holiday event work required as the schedule dictates.

AIC reserves the right to fill this position at a level above or below the level included in this posting.

AIC is an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.

Application Instructions:

Qualified applicants should save and submit the following documents with the online application.

  • Brief cover letter
  • Current resume
  • Contact information for three professional references (one of which must be a current or prior supervisor)

Review of applications will continue until the position has been filled.



Sent from my iPhone