Academics vs Athletics and the case of Prime Prep Academy

Texas based Prime Prep Academy, founded in part by former Cowboys player and 2011 Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Deion Sanders, may be the subject of the age old battle of academics vs athletics.  And so far neither side seems to want to budge on the flailing charter school's list of academic and financial woes.

According to an article in today's New York Times, at the heart of the school's problems is Sanders himself.  Did Deion "Prime Time" Sanders create an atmosphere where athletics and ego were placed at the top of the pinnacle?

The school's charter is being revoked by the Texas Education Agency for accusations surrounding their participation and use of funds in the school lunch program.  According to the Dallas News, at issue are the alleged misuse of almost $46,000 in funds.  The article also notes that Prime Prep is appealing the agency's efforts to revoke their charter.  One recent victory in favor of Prime Prep reported in the article is the ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn where the judge agreed with Prime Prep's attorney that the school was not properly served with the lawsuit.  While this ruling buys some time for the school to address the revocation, it will still need to meet certain criteria and pay back the funds to reinstate itself in the school lunch program according to sources.

Deion Sanders has been a marketing master post pro football career, and with his acquisition of corporate spokesperson contracts, sports analyst positions and reality television successes he has continued his star power persona.  Was this school an extension of that star power for a state like Texas where football is larger than life?  Former school employees and a school board member who were quoted in the New York Times article seem to indicate Sanders, who was fired twice from the school, was creating a recruiting powerhouse from Prime Prep and its athletes, caring little about their grades or any emphasis on placing education above that of sports accolades.

The school's website whose motto is "Aspire, Inspire, Succeed" seems to place a great deal of emphasis on academics by stating it is "the place where students come first".  As the investigation furthers from both media and the TEA, perhaps the answer will emerge as to whether the school administration and its founders were working towards "first" in academics or athletics. 

NCAA court ruling says pay up, but how much?

For many the question of whether student athletes should receive any type of compensation was answered by the courts this week, when Federal Judge Claudia Wilken ruled against the NCAA in the antitrust case of Ed O'Bannon.

The traditional model for college players has been compensation limited to scholarships and education.  With Friday's historic ruling, the doors for compensation opened, but not without its own set of rules and regulations.  O'Bannon, a former UCLA basketball star player, along with 19 others had filed the lawsuit based on antitrust law violations for use of their likeness.  The lawsuit focused on television broadcasts and video games, and the associated revenues generated from their names.

In her introduction Judge Wilken ruled against the NCAA, and also video game company Electronic Arts, where she stated the following:

"Competition takes many forms.  Although this case raises questions about athletic competition on the football field and the basketball court, it is principally about the rules governing competition in a different arena -- namely, the marketplace."

The Sherman Antitrust Act passed in 1890 is based primarily on competition and was a strong argument in the case, kind of ironic when you think about the NCAA's basis for not compensating student athletes to keep competition fair.  This law deals with conduct that by its very nature is interpreted to destroy competition.  While monopolies play a role, the Sherman Antitrust Act does not impeded fair monopolies that arise out of competition, so long as that competition is based on the merits of success.

While the ruling set limits of $5,000 compensation per year per player for larger schools, and creates a payout that will be held in a trust to be paid after the player leaves the NCAA, many fear this will change the face of college football.  A subsequent injunction is forthcoming from Judge Wilken and will further define the outcome of this case.

Bobbleheads and jerseys were not included in the licensing revenues, but does this open the door for other challenges on market based items?  At the very least it represents a huge hit to the NCAA, which as an organization has been widely criticized in recent years for their practices.  It will be interesting to watch what happens going forward as the playing field levels and the conferences consider their choices.  The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry who now must share at least some of the wealth with its players.