Motion to Disrupt Vol. 10
Navigating the Other Red Zone
OPENING STATEMENTS
The most dangerous stretch of the college year is here. From orientation to winter break, the risk of sexual misconduct and assault spikes. For athletes, this year brings new variables that could make what’s commonly known as the “Red Zone” even more treacherous.
For the first time, Division I schools can pay their athletes directly. That money changes perception. It changes scrutiny. It changes what’s at stake if you make a mistake. And some of the windfall is substantial. The Red Zone was already a period where small decisions could have life-altering consequences. Now, the spotlight is hotter, and the fallout can be faster.
One survey shows that 26% of college women and 7% of men experience sexual assault during their time in college, most of it during the Red Zone. I’ve been involved with a number of Title IX matters over the years, and I’ve seen some of the root causes, particularly among first-year and transfer athletes. They’re new to campus, learning team dynamics, juggling academic pressure, trying to fit in, and navigating a social scene where alcohol and risky situations are common. Teammates may be the closest thing to a support system, but that closeness can also shield bad behavior from view.
That vulnerability intersects with a new compensation era, as the House v. NCAA settlement allows schools to share up to $20.5 million each year with athletes. That shift brings complications: more scrutiny, more expectations, more visibility and a sharper edge to every choice made on and off the field. It also brings more of the pressures that can erode judgement and lead to misconduct. The combination of high stakes, high visibility, and high vulnerability makes this year different. And without proactive steps, it’s easy for those conditions to tip in the wrong direction.
Some of the most effective safeguards come from inside the team, not from annual compliance meetings. Peer-led prevention programs work because athletes listen to each other more than they listen to authority figures. Trained team captains, structured mentoring between veterans and newcomers, and informal check-ins from athletic trainers can spot trouble before it escalates.
But it must start with the players themselves. From my experience, these are the critical considerations for navigating the Red Zone:
Build a strong support network early.
Quickly learn the rules - financial, behavioral, academic - and ask when unsure. This is particularly true around the use of AI in class.
Be smart on social media. In today’s digital-first world, anything you type can be used as evidence - even texts. Understand that harassment is real and can escalate. And one ill-advised post or message can have serious ramifications.
Set a limit if you’re going to drink, minimizing one of the major drivers of misconduct.
Clearly establish consent in all situations.
Use the buddy system. Look out for teammates and step in safely when something feels wrong.
Plan for the worst and report right away. If something does happen, know who you need to call - before making any decisions that are irreversible. Quick action can protect your Title IX rights and help you navigate the college disciplinary process. Report to any employee of the institution, they have an obligation to report it to the Title IX office.
Set clear boundaries between hazing and bonding. Many states have anti-hazing statutes that have criminal penalties for those who haze classmates or teammates.
The foundation has shifted considerably this year. Athletes have more opportunities than ever, but also more ways to lose them. The stakes are higher, the rules are shifting, and the season has already started. Navigating the Red Zone now takes more than awareness — it takes a plan. Those who enter it unprepared are gambling with more than just their record.
EXHIBIT A
One of the most frequent calls I’m getting from college athletes right now concerns eligibility. Confusion is rampant just weeks, in some cases days, before fall seasons are scheduled to begin. Since 2024, the NCAA has faced 33 lawsuits challenging its eligibility rules, with federal courts split on key issues like whether junior college play counts against eligibility and the five-year completion limit. Some rulings see eligibility rules as “commercial,” opening antitrust challenges. The NCAA is appealing major losses and lobbying Congress for clearer protections, but the uncertainty leaves athletes and programs scrambling as seasons loom. While the NCAA has had a string of wins recently, this is only going to accelerate.
EXHIBIT B
Eligibility isn’t the only area where the NCAA is winning right now. The NCAA is also winning several NIL backpay cases. Last week, the NCAA secured a victory against the 1983 “Cardiac Pack” NC State basketball team, who had sued for compensation over what they claimed was excessive profit from rebroadcasted footage using their NIL. This dismissal follows a string of similar outcomes – including recent cases by former Kansas standout Mario Chalmers and Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor – that have failed for the same reasons: the claims were untimely, and athletes could not demonstrate enforceable rights over the footage in question. This sequence of decisions further cements a legal precedent that leans heavily in favor of the NCAA regarding retroactive NIL claims from decades past.
ON THE DOCKET
I’m more intrigued than ever by the outcome of the tampering court case between Wisconsin and Miami. As we discussed previously in this space, Wisconsin sued Miami for allegedly tampering with defensive back Xavier Lucas, who had already signed a revenue-share deal to return in 2025. Miami on Friday asked the court to dismiss the case. At the same time, James Blanchard, the GM for football at Texas Tech, which reportedly has invested $55 million in athlete payments for the ‘25-26 academic year, seems all in on tampering. As he told Rivals: “We’re going to poach some guys. “I’m going to do senior evals on the 2026 class across the country and if somebody is underpaying an elite guy that has senior tape – he might be a four or five-star guy and people are only paying him 100, 200-thousand –I’m going to give him three to 400-thousand and go steal somebody.”
FOOTNOTES
"Interesting world we live in. He's my agent, but he's representing players that are on my team.”
LSU football head coach Brian Kelly, on navigating NIL negotiations while both he and his star quarterback, Garrett Nussmeier, are represented by the same agent (via Any Given Saturday).
