Following the Atlantic Coast Conference Spring meetings, the Osceola's Jerry Kutz interviewed Dr. Michael “Mike” Brady, a former FSU pitcher, who has been Florida State University's Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) since 2021, for his thoughts on the meetings. As a Faculty Athletic Rep, Brady is a liaison between the institution and the athletics department, and he is also a representative of the institution in conference and NCAA affairs. The role of the FAR is to ensure that the academic institution establishes and maintains the appropriate balance between academics and intercollegiate athletics.
Brady is an assistant provost at Florida State, a Bob Sasser Professor and chairman in the Dr. Persis E. Rockwood School of Marketing in the College of Business. As a former FSU pitcher (1987-1990), Brady posted a 6-1 record in 19 games his senior year with 51 strikeouts in 50 innings. Interestingly, Brady comes to his academic/athletic background naturally — his father, Jim Brady, is the former president of Jacksonville University and played for the Detroit Tigers.
Kutz: What was your take on the ACC meetings among Faculty Athletic Representatives?
Brady: I think they were productive. I think it felt good to finally stop talking about the House case and actually start talking about how to implement it. I know (the House Settlement) hasn't been officially approved, but I think our conference and the other power four conferences are planning and moving forward as though it's imminent. And hopefully, it will be approved in the next week or so, but it felt good to go ahead and see how this is going to be operationalized.
We've been talking about this case for literally years and it's here now. And I guess it always felt like it was this big tidal wave that was going to hit us. And in some sense, when you know something big is going to hit you, and finally it hits, there's a bit of relief. And that's kind of how I think everyone felt in that room.
Kutz: What presentation did Deloitte make to the ACC members?
Brady: It was really more of a demonstration of the software that could be used to manage the House Case key pieces, which are revenue sharing, managing the cap, that was one piece of software. And then the other one was how to manage NIL. moving forward, when it's going to be assessed for market value. So both of those pieces were demonstrated, and that's kind of what I meant about the operationalization of all of this that we've been talking so much about — revenue sharing and the cap.
One of the questions that was always in the back of everyone's mind was how are we going to manage all of this? And so it was interesting to see that come to life a little bit.
Kutz: Deloitte is a world class organization. Did you feel like what they put in front of you was pretty well vetted?
Brady: Yeah. So they've been doing this for a long time. As I understand it, they've done it for the NFL. So the cap software is proprietary and unique to the NCAA.
The NFL does have a mechanism by which to evaluate players. Deals with outside companies as well, so I think there is no better company to manage this thing. The problem is, and the question remains, who is going to provide oversight, right? So what happens if a third party doesn't follow through on their promise for NIL? What happens if a player doesn't show up for autographs, and who manages that, and is that a violation on the part of the university or is that on the student athlete? That's unclear. And so we have to figure out who's going to do that and how it's going to be managed. I'm certain that the universities are hoping that it's outside the universities, which is what it is now. (Currently) it exists within collectives. But how is that going to happen and who's going to be responsible is unclear still.
Kutz: What will it take to clear that up? Do you think ultimately the NCAA is going to have to rule on how that will transpire?
Brady: If someone doesn't report an NIL deal, the student athlete doesn't report a deal, who's responsible for that lack of reporting? Is it the student athlete, which would be an eligibility concern, or is it the university, which would be a sanction concern? Or is it both? Those are the kinds of questions that remain to be answered, and what we saw as a demonstration of how it could be managed, but not who would be responsible for it. I don't think it has been decided.
It's widely reported that deals under $600 will not be subject to a fair market value assessment. And anything over $600 has to be reviewed by Deloitte to assess fair market value. So the idea you can pay a left tackle $50,000 to do autographs for 45 minutes in front of a car dealership, that's not going to work anymore. They would have to be consistent with what that person should be paid for the job done. And so we've all been asking for these sorts of guardrails. We want the wild west to end. And so this, in a lot of ways, will help accomplish that goal.
Kutz: What are the metrics they use to assess what that left tackle is worth? Does it follow an NFL model?
Brady: Yeah. My assumption is that it is going to be a learning algorithm. So you start with some deals (from the NFL) and it learns from those. The deals that it would start with would have to come from the NFL and then the algorithm would be updated based on the deals that are input into the system. From my academic background, from an AI perspective, the longer it goes and the more it learns, the better, the more accurate it becomes. It might be a little bumpy in the beginning, while it is being updated but ultimately it's going to be pretty accurate. I know the goal is not to set the market. That's pretty clear. The goal is to assess what the market will bear, rather than set the market for these activities. And that's a big distinction.
Kutz: As a free market guy, you know athletes and agents will claim their NIL value is whatever the market will bear, right?
Brady: And that's got to be very clear to everyone that we are not trying to set the market. We are simply trying to assess the market and determine whether any one particular deal is consistent with what the market will bear.
Kutz: Was the Deloitte presentation made with all 18 ACC programs in the room?
Brady: Yeah, all of us were in the room. And I think they did an individual one also for the ADs, which might have been a little more specific.
Kutz: Did you all get to interact in this session or throughout the week?
Brady: No, we did not. That might have been what they did with the ADs. There wasn't even time for Q and A because we were up against the time limit. It was just interesting, I think, for everybody to see how this could work. They were pretty clear to use the right language, could work, would work, will work if and when Judge Wilken approves the settlement. But it's clear to all that we are moving forward with the clear knowledge that we expect it to be approved.
Kutz: I know FSU has been planning for this, assuming it's a go. Do you all have a working plan going into this?
Brady: Oh, yeah, yeah. I think all programs, especially in the Power 4, have been planning for this for at least a year. And in the last nine months, everyone has been planning in earnest. We were commenting there in our (Faculty Athletic Representative) room that it would be far more hazardous at this point, I think, for the Power 4 if it didn't go through. Because implicit promises have been made around the country, assuming that rev share is going to happen, and so reversing course on that would be really problematic at this point. We're very much hoping that it does go through so that we can get on to the next phase of managing programs.
Kutz: Did what Deloitte present validate what you've been planning? Or did it raise some other big questions?
Brady: No, I think each program is on its own to manage the cap we have when it goes through or if it goes through. We'll all have $20.5 million to spend, minus Alston payments and new scholarships, so let's call it $18 million that is essentially the revenue sharing cap. And so the question is, how do you allocate that across all of your athletics teams and all of your student athletes? So that's what the planning has been.
And I think the main piece of planning across all of our programs is, where are we going to find $20.5 million in budgets that are strained. It is widely reported that quite a few programs are in the red, so cost cutting has to be part of the planning across the country as well. I'm not specifically speaking about FSU, but it's clear that cost cutting has to be part of it as well. So that's been going on.
Kutz: If you didn't have time to do much collaboration over the ACC spring meetings, will that be an ongoing process?
Brady: I think the athletic directors work pretty closely together. Obviously our programs compete against each other but in situations like this, where we're all trying to figure it out, there's a lot of collaboration across all the rooms, across the ADs, across the presidents, across the senior women's administrators, and the FARs as well, because we're all just trying to figure it out, because there isn't a manual for this.
It's been pretty clear that a few years ago, nobody saw this coming. So if I could describe the way it's been handled across programs is collaboratively. As a FAR, I'll call other FARs and ask them how they're handling certain things. And they’ll call me and ask us how we're handling certain things. We're all looking for best practice at this point, right?
Kutz: What else was discussed in your meetings?
Brady: I'm gonna speak from the nerd part of myself, but the Faculty Athletic Reps talked a lot about the need and the importance of infusing academics within the larger narrative around just college athletics right now, lot of discussions about all kinds of size within the way the NCAA is run and, unfortunately enough, and I would agree with that, and I think it needs to be discussed more. For example, as we think about going from four teams in the College Football Playoff now to 12, and it's widely been reported that it may go to 16. What does that do on the academic side of things? And I think there needs to be more discussion and more thought, both from mainstream media. You never hear about that on, say, ESPN or on any of the folks discussing it. But those are real concerns, right?
The way the College Football Playoff could be configured is that you would conceivably start it during final exams in the fall and finish two or three weeks into the spring semester. And anybody who's at class will know that the two most important weeks of any semester are the last week and the first week or two, right? And so we're cutting across both. And I think the FAR group, both within the ACC and beyond, are frustrated that that kind of discussion isn't happening on a national level.
The student athlete Academic Services groups we have at FSU and elsewhere do a phenomenal job, but we're all afraid that we'll get to a point where there's only so much you could do, and student athletes are missing class, and being asked to have their seasons extended well beyond what has historically happened. I'm sure you know and remember well that New Year's Day, was it right? That was the big day. Everything ended New Year's Day, and so that was really great from an academic standpoint, because the spring semester would start a week or two later, and you had a fresh start. Now the playoff goes well beyond that, and even in front of that, as well.
What we hope is academics will at least be recognized and that any move the NCAA, the College Football Playoff, or any of the playoffs make, will have an impact on the academic side of things. We need to consider that and take it into account, because it's getting to the point (with revenue sharing and NIL) that the one real difference between our student-athletes and professional players is that Tom Brady didn't have a day job as a student when he was playing for the Patriots, whereas all of our athletes do, and we have to keep that in mind.
Kutz: This is a subject I'd like to really take a deep dive into with you. Would you be willing to do in a follow-up interview?
Brady: Yeah, I'd love to. In fact, I was going to ask for that.
Brady is an assistant provost at Florida State, a Bob Sasser Professor and chairman in the Dr. Persis E. Rockwood School of Marketing in the College of Business. As a former FSU pitcher (1987-1990), Brady posted a 6-1 record in 19 games his senior year with 51 strikeouts in 50 innings. Interestingly, Brady comes to his academic/athletic background naturally — his father, Jim Brady, is the former president of Jacksonville University and played for the Detroit Tigers.
Kutz: What was your take on the ACC meetings among Faculty Athletic Representatives?
Brady: I think they were productive. I think it felt good to finally stop talking about the House case and actually start talking about how to implement it. I know (the House Settlement) hasn't been officially approved, but I think our conference and the other power four conferences are planning and moving forward as though it's imminent. And hopefully, it will be approved in the next week or so, but it felt good to go ahead and see how this is going to be operationalized.
We've been talking about this case for literally years and it's here now. And I guess it always felt like it was this big tidal wave that was going to hit us. And in some sense, when you know something big is going to hit you, and finally it hits, there's a bit of relief. And that's kind of how I think everyone felt in that room.
Kutz: What presentation did Deloitte make to the ACC members?
Brady: It was really more of a demonstration of the software that could be used to manage the House Case key pieces, which are revenue sharing, managing the cap, that was one piece of software. And then the other one was how to manage NIL. moving forward, when it's going to be assessed for market value. So both of those pieces were demonstrated, and that's kind of what I meant about the operationalization of all of this that we've been talking so much about — revenue sharing and the cap.
One of the questions that was always in the back of everyone's mind was how are we going to manage all of this? And so it was interesting to see that come to life a little bit.
Kutz: Deloitte is a world class organization. Did you feel like what they put in front of you was pretty well vetted?
Brady: Yeah. So they've been doing this for a long time. As I understand it, they've done it for the NFL. So the cap software is proprietary and unique to the NCAA.
The NFL does have a mechanism by which to evaluate players. Deals with outside companies as well, so I think there is no better company to manage this thing. The problem is, and the question remains, who is going to provide oversight, right? So what happens if a third party doesn't follow through on their promise for NIL? What happens if a player doesn't show up for autographs, and who manages that, and is that a violation on the part of the university or is that on the student athlete? That's unclear. And so we have to figure out who's going to do that and how it's going to be managed. I'm certain that the universities are hoping that it's outside the universities, which is what it is now. (Currently) it exists within collectives. But how is that going to happen and who's going to be responsible is unclear still.
Kutz: What will it take to clear that up? Do you think ultimately the NCAA is going to have to rule on how that will transpire?
Brady: If someone doesn't report an NIL deal, the student athlete doesn't report a deal, who's responsible for that lack of reporting? Is it the student athlete, which would be an eligibility concern, or is it the university, which would be a sanction concern? Or is it both? Those are the kinds of questions that remain to be answered, and what we saw as a demonstration of how it could be managed, but not who would be responsible for it. I don't think it has been decided.
It's widely reported that deals under $600 will not be subject to a fair market value assessment. And anything over $600 has to be reviewed by Deloitte to assess fair market value. So the idea you can pay a left tackle $50,000 to do autographs for 45 minutes in front of a car dealership, that's not going to work anymore. They would have to be consistent with what that person should be paid for the job done. And so we've all been asking for these sorts of guardrails. We want the wild west to end. And so this, in a lot of ways, will help accomplish that goal.
Kutz: What are the metrics they use to assess what that left tackle is worth? Does it follow an NFL model?
Brady: Yeah. My assumption is that it is going to be a learning algorithm. So you start with some deals (from the NFL) and it learns from those. The deals that it would start with would have to come from the NFL and then the algorithm would be updated based on the deals that are input into the system. From my academic background, from an AI perspective, the longer it goes and the more it learns, the better, the more accurate it becomes. It might be a little bumpy in the beginning, while it is being updated but ultimately it's going to be pretty accurate. I know the goal is not to set the market. That's pretty clear. The goal is to assess what the market will bear, rather than set the market for these activities. And that's a big distinction.
Kutz: As a free market guy, you know athletes and agents will claim their NIL value is whatever the market will bear, right?
Brady: And that's got to be very clear to everyone that we are not trying to set the market. We are simply trying to assess the market and determine whether any one particular deal is consistent with what the market will bear.
Kutz: Was the Deloitte presentation made with all 18 ACC programs in the room?
Brady: Yeah, all of us were in the room. And I think they did an individual one also for the ADs, which might have been a little more specific.
Kutz: Did you all get to interact in this session or throughout the week?
Brady: No, we did not. That might have been what they did with the ADs. There wasn't even time for Q and A because we were up against the time limit. It was just interesting, I think, for everybody to see how this could work. They were pretty clear to use the right language, could work, would work, will work if and when Judge Wilken approves the settlement. But it's clear to all that we are moving forward with the clear knowledge that we expect it to be approved.
Kutz: I know FSU has been planning for this, assuming it's a go. Do you all have a working plan going into this?
Brady: Oh, yeah, yeah. I think all programs, especially in the Power 4, have been planning for this for at least a year. And in the last nine months, everyone has been planning in earnest. We were commenting there in our (Faculty Athletic Representative) room that it would be far more hazardous at this point, I think, for the Power 4 if it didn't go through. Because implicit promises have been made around the country, assuming that rev share is going to happen, and so reversing course on that would be really problematic at this point. We're very much hoping that it does go through so that we can get on to the next phase of managing programs.
Kutz: Did what Deloitte present validate what you've been planning? Or did it raise some other big questions?
Brady: No, I think each program is on its own to manage the cap we have when it goes through or if it goes through. We'll all have $20.5 million to spend, minus Alston payments and new scholarships, so let's call it $18 million that is essentially the revenue sharing cap. And so the question is, how do you allocate that across all of your athletics teams and all of your student athletes? So that's what the planning has been.
And I think the main piece of planning across all of our programs is, where are we going to find $20.5 million in budgets that are strained. It is widely reported that quite a few programs are in the red, so cost cutting has to be part of the planning across the country as well. I'm not specifically speaking about FSU, but it's clear that cost cutting has to be part of it as well. So that's been going on.
Kutz: If you didn't have time to do much collaboration over the ACC spring meetings, will that be an ongoing process?
Brady: I think the athletic directors work pretty closely together. Obviously our programs compete against each other but in situations like this, where we're all trying to figure it out, there's a lot of collaboration across all the rooms, across the ADs, across the presidents, across the senior women's administrators, and the FARs as well, because we're all just trying to figure it out, because there isn't a manual for this.
It's been pretty clear that a few years ago, nobody saw this coming. So if I could describe the way it's been handled across programs is collaboratively. As a FAR, I'll call other FARs and ask them how they're handling certain things. And they’ll call me and ask us how we're handling certain things. We're all looking for best practice at this point, right?
Kutz: What else was discussed in your meetings?
Brady: I'm gonna speak from the nerd part of myself, but the Faculty Athletic Reps talked a lot about the need and the importance of infusing academics within the larger narrative around just college athletics right now, lot of discussions about all kinds of size within the way the NCAA is run and, unfortunately enough, and I would agree with that, and I think it needs to be discussed more. For example, as we think about going from four teams in the College Football Playoff now to 12, and it's widely been reported that it may go to 16. What does that do on the academic side of things? And I think there needs to be more discussion and more thought, both from mainstream media. You never hear about that on, say, ESPN or on any of the folks discussing it. But those are real concerns, right?
The way the College Football Playoff could be configured is that you would conceivably start it during final exams in the fall and finish two or three weeks into the spring semester. And anybody who's at class will know that the two most important weeks of any semester are the last week and the first week or two, right? And so we're cutting across both. And I think the FAR group, both within the ACC and beyond, are frustrated that that kind of discussion isn't happening on a national level.
The student athlete Academic Services groups we have at FSU and elsewhere do a phenomenal job, but we're all afraid that we'll get to a point where there's only so much you could do, and student athletes are missing class, and being asked to have their seasons extended well beyond what has historically happened. I'm sure you know and remember well that New Year's Day, was it right? That was the big day. Everything ended New Year's Day, and so that was really great from an academic standpoint, because the spring semester would start a week or two later, and you had a fresh start. Now the playoff goes well beyond that, and even in front of that, as well.
What we hope is academics will at least be recognized and that any move the NCAA, the College Football Playoff, or any of the playoffs make, will have an impact on the academic side of things. We need to consider that and take it into account, because it's getting to the point (with revenue sharing and NIL) that the one real difference between our student-athletes and professional players is that Tom Brady didn't have a day job as a student when he was playing for the Patriots, whereas all of our athletes do, and we have to keep that in mind.
Kutz: This is a subject I'd like to really take a deep dive into with you. Would you be willing to do in a follow-up interview?
Brady: Yeah, I'd love to. In fact, I was going to ask for that.
