Mark Emmert's audition for a job on SNL.

[Kibitzer]

I just read an acccount of the interview of NCAA Prez Mark Emmert on "Mike & Mike" that was so laughable that it would serve him well as a member of the creative staff for SNL.

Basically, he makes the pathetic NCAA case opposing player unions. Among the points he made:

1. The reason the NCAA discourages player transfers is because they want to prevent coaches from recruiting players from other teams' benches. So he is saying, in effect, that the way we prevent improper behavior by coaches is to punish the players. (Psst. Dr. Emmert. Professional sports do it by meting out penalties to teams and owners for "tampering.")

2. If college players were in unions, it would destroy the traditional relationship between coaches and players. Huh? (As if MLB managers don't manage and NBA, NFL, or NHL coaches don't coach -- in their traditional roles with their players, all union members.)

3. If players were in unions, they would have to rely on workmen's comp for health insurance. Apparently he actually said that.

4. Finally, he tossed out the spectre of *Division I teams just tossing in the towel (and a zillion TV bucks) by simply going to Division III sports competition. As if all the AD's in the SEC, Big 10, etc., would simultaneously take a vow of poverty. Laughable. And pathetic.​

Dr. Emmert is the fellow who runs the NCAA and exerts enormous control over every single non-union athlete playing Division I sports and helping to generate billions of bucks for their (dare I say it?) employers.

*On edit. Another BY poster pointed out my error in limiting my reference to "Division I teams," which more accurately (and with more accountability) should have been "Colleges/Universities with Division I sports teams. . ." I regret my oversight and appreciate the correction.

 

[pap49cba]

Not to mention his snarky comment that "now UConn can serve Shabazz breakfast in bed".

Emmert is a joke.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Not to mention his snarky comment that "now UConn can serve Shabazz breakfast in bed".

Emmert is a joke.

Whatever his logic - and there is, actually, some, his small and petty comment is just that. Or, an effort to be funny that failed miserably.

 

[UcMiami]

I have to say the problem here is that universities and their trustees/governors have been so corrupted by big time athletics that they have basically washed their hands of the issue and have allowed their own creation the 'NCAA' to become its own behemoth. I think creating a union is just adding a whole new entity to 'college athletics' that has nothing to do with education or the mission of universities.
On #4 - interesting that you talk about 'division 1 teams' and not 'universities'. I agree no AD or coach is likely to want to drop out, but most colleges don't make money on their athletics - they write off their losses as 'publicity' and it is generally a positive, but the further divorced from academia sports get, the more likely the PR disasters are going to be.
There are 169 Div 1a football schools and 340 + Div 1 basketball schools and while revenue/expense/profit varies greatly year to year it appears around 20 turn a profit in any given year and fewer do it consistently enough to end say a ten year rolling period in the black. And of those 20, if you removed 'subsidies' (money from general college funds) the number dwindles to about 10. And you already have ADs like Rutgers and Maryland that have basically gone bankrupt costing their states huge amounts of tax revenue to get out from under that debt. Adding any new expenses to this equation like athlete subsidies will just increase the losses that most colleges experience on a yearly basis and the net result will be fewer scholarship sports programs and more 'club' sports. Football and men's basketball will remain which with title IX means about 90 women's scholarship positions, but after allocations for those women's teams everything else is likely to disappear at most schools. Men's volleyball - currently 40 programs, men's wrestling 33, cross country 30, Swimming/diving, indoor and outdoor T&F each with 25.
A simple change like the 'unlimited' food that the NCAA just instituted you can bet will become an arms race at the top - Ohio State is offering $250 in off plan food subsidies to me, what are you offering? Multiply that weekly by 200 scholarship athletes and you get to $2M pretty quickly. And I give it a few years before the first scandal involving an athlete creating a in-dorm commissary selling on bags of chips and snickers bars and gatorade from his unlimited stash.
And a cash subsidy is exactly the same. No problem for a Texas, big problem for Iowa State or Wisconsin or Cal.
And while tax payers are pretty oblivious to the fractions of state revenue going to higher education and particularly to athletics, budgets are getting squeezed and education is one area that gets hit pretty hard. Voters are not feeling generous about taxes and it will not be long before a scandal like the one at Rutgers turns into a tax revolt and a 'big time' athletic department gets hammered.
A couple of interesting web sites - somewhat out of date, but still illuminating.
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/15/3021940/chart-revenues-profits-college-athletics

 

[Adesmar123]

I just read an acccount of the interview of NCAA Prez Mark Emmert on "Mike & Mike" that was so laughable that it would serve him well as a member of the creative staff for SNL.

I understand your point, but I wouldn't use SNL as the benchmark. They just aren't that funny anymore.

 

[intlzncster]

I understand your point, but I wouldn't use SNL as the benchmark. They just aren't that funny anymore.

Yeah but...neither is Emmert!

 

[intlzncster]

Not to mention his snarky comment that "now UConn can serve Shabazz breakfast in bed".

Emmert is a joke.

Guy can't help but be slimy. For those who aren't familiar with his 'illustrious background', here's a good article to get you up to speed:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...dent-emmert-previous-cases-uconn-lsu/2047607/

 

[UcMiami]

Just as a follow-up to my earlier post - I mentioned the teams making a profit what I did not then state is the obvious flip side:
There are 150+ div 1a football schools whose athletic departments lose money every year and if you take away subsidies more like 160 or 94%. Add in the additional 170 Div 1 basketball schools and the number swells to 330 to about 97%.
People complain about college tuition costs - well, not sure what the average subsidy was, but $5M is probably around a median and at some schools $20+M - money that is not going into education.