My question for Dr. Brand is this, after seeing all of the players in college football who were given a 6th year of eligibility due to injury is done very arbitrarily in the minds of many. The lineman for Oklahoma recieved a 6th year although he was kicked off the team for disciplinary reasons while many players who were hurt in actual practice or games were denied. Can you tell us exactly what the people who make this decisions are looking at and what the guidelines really are?

Why is it that in NCAA basketball, players can celebrate, but in football they can't?

I saw a lot of celebration going on in basketball this year and don't really think its fair to penalize football players for doing it when the basketball players don't.

I think that rule should go for all NCAA sports or none of them.

Dr. Brand, I had been a longtime listener to ESPN Radio and had enjoyed their coverage of college sports, particularly football and basketball.

That is, until recently.

Since the Atlantic Coast Conference's raid of the Big East Conference three years ago, ESPN Radio - and Disney/ABC in general - has become heavily pro-ACC and anti-Big East in their coverage of both leagues.

It is no secret that the media giant has invested greatly in the ACC and would like that league to become more popular in the Northeast, to the detriment of the Big East.

To achieve this goal, Disney/ABC is systematically painting the Big East as a 'minor' conference using various forms of negative coverage, particularly through it's radio division.

The results have clearly damaged the national reputation of one of the NCAA's proudest leagues, possibly forever.

Sir, I humbly ask: to what extent should a private media entity have power to shape national opinion of NCAA-sanctioned conferences? Does your office condone this type of self-serving favoritism? And what, if anything, can your office do to address this type of issue?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

so in what ways has the University of North Dakota direspected the Sioux tribe? Is the NCAA just taking the tribe's word for it? I dont understand how we can be "hostile and abusive". I need answers.
Thanks.

Thank you, Dr. Brand. How do you feel about all of the conference jumping and "realingment" over the past several years within NCAA football? Do you feel that it is the right thing to do? Or, is the "raiding" mentality exemplified by the ACC a negative perception for NCAA football? Do you feel that we have not seen the last of this kind of thing within major college athletics?

Thank you.

The situation at Duke has led to some discussion in the press about what David Brooks in The New York Times -- himself quoting a USA Today columnist -- termed, "the notion of athletic entitlement and privilege," by some athletes.

How do you address such attitudes, if they do indeed exist?

My question is about more than NCAA athletics and pertains all the U.S. athletics. What does he think is the best method for developing athletes in America? Different nations have different methods that have produced results in different areas. Club-systems are popular
for European countries in the Olympic sports, while professional teams have helped develop soccer players. America relies on the collegiate system for the majority of sports, but baseball, gymnastics, and other sports get their success through other systems.

Thanks,
-Martin

I know the NCAA has taken a lot of measures to reinforce the student in student-athlete with measures like the APR. But at the same time, two of the four major professional sports leagues, the NBA and NHL, signed collective bargaining agreements last summer that greatly decreased the chances of athletes staying in school for four years and completing their degree.

In the NBA, it was the minimum age restriction that will force top high schoolers who normally would have gone to the NBA to spend a year in college before being drafted.

In the NHL, the deadline to sign a college draft pick was moved up to August of the year that player's class graduates. Because of this short time frame after a player's fourth year, many teams feel the need to try and get college players to sign pro contracts after their junior season and not risk losing them to free agency.

The problem I have is that this seems to make college athletics more like a minor league rather than a place to get an education while playing a sport. I guess my question is is this something that the NCAA is concerned about, and did they have any sort of say in these negotiations when they were going on last summer? Is there anything that will be done about this in the future?

Dr. Brand,

I have never understood the punishment of schools that are caught cheating. Why are the players punished, like no bowls, or no TV, or no tournement, when it is boosters or coaches or administrators that are the ones that have cheated. Why not have the coaches fired, or fined, and the same for boosters or administrators. The players should never be punished for crimes that went on before most of them reached the campus.

A lot of people feel that while APR has good intentions, it was released and implemented before it was completely thought out. For example, it was released before gathering 4 years of complete data and difference in team size wasn't taken into account. Many feel that people who do not really understand sport are at the helm and imposing "No child left behind" similarities in rules and regs on student athletes. Is the new APR rule really helping anything or is it scaring students into easier majors? What are your thoughts on this?

It is simply amazing how inconsistent the NCAA is regarding the mascot/name issue. While all appeals are heard by the appropriate committee, some are denied for the same reason while some are approved. There is no consistency with the rationale. Having the local support of an individual tribe seems to be innapropriate as a direct measure. I respect the affected tribes opinion but more needs to factor into the equation. Why do items such as the following not be consided important: 1) Number of actual students affected (In other words - how many from that tribe attending that school) While the University of North Dakota nearly leads the nation in native american students, Florida State has about 3!!!!!!! 2) What is the overall public support of the issue (Minority and non-minority included) 3) Why does the origin of the name matter! Braves - No specific tribe named at all which means it will be pretty tough to get the support of thin air! Illini - Its the State not the tribe - Clever!!!!! Sioux - This is from the French. I saved the best for last................Pontiac (Which is the official car of the NCAA is a Native American tribe). How is Pontiac acceptable and some of the above are not?

I have paid close attention to this area the NCAA is addressing in the last 12 months. I am astonished at the level of inconsistency that has arisen!

Should the NBA require that all players have at least a bachelor's degree?

I think so. It discredits the NCAA when the NBA accepts players directly out of high school.

What do you think?

I am trying to find out what NCAA looks for and checks on in order to decide if an athlete who applies for their 6th year will be granted it or not. It seems like some people who get injured do not receive it, but people who get in trouble or never have surgery do. Why is it that a person who gets red-shirted their freshman year and injured in another year can not automatically be granted a 6th year? Do the person???s grades, image, or the school have any help in making the decision easier or harder? Also, why is it that a student can only play 2 years in junior college, but when applying for a 6th year because of a surgery which never allowed him to play in any of one season of his sport.

Also, please explain this to me, if a person is on a baseball team in junior college for 3 years (one year being a redshirt year), then transfers to a Division I school where he has an injury before the season starts which does not allow him to play in any of his first season with his Division I team. The second year at this Division I school he plays and then decides to apply for his 6th year. What I do not understand is why he is not automatically given his 6th year? Because you can only play 2 years in junior college and he only played 1 year in Division I. It seems that there is something missing in this puzzle, just because he was redshirted his freshman year, now he can???t get back the year that he was unable to play because of surgery? This rule just does not seem fair. It is not the player???s fault for getting injured, or being red-shirted, so why take it out on a person who worked so hard to get where he is only to be told he can???t get one more year of his dream back?

Thank you,
Lance Luetge