Somebody Muzzle Mark Emmert

[Chin Diesel]

Emmert reminds me of the we've all worked with that sucks at his job but always schmoozed with the right folks and got promoted way above his level (Peter Principle to the Nth degree).

Finally said gets his shot in front of a non-partisan group and has to stand on his merits.

Epic. Fail. Commences.

 

[noeynox]

I think, and my "system" is based on the idea, that college athletics should be played by college students who are there to become educated men and women. That some of them are good enough to eventually play professionally is fine. But if that is the only reason they are there, and let's be honest how many Kentucky basketball players would have come to Kentucky had the NBA nor required them to wait a year to be drafted, is to train for the pros, you really don't belong. My system would also put pressure on coaches to find the players who want to be in college. If a coach has to weigh the benefits of a 1 and done, 2 and done player vs going a few years without scholarships, he's going to be very careful. Hey, if you think you have a shot at going deep and adding Joey Jumpshot will put you over the top, you might decide to take the chance and live with a 1 less scholarships for a few years. As far as transfers go, I'd keep the 1 years sit out rule but other than that a guy can transfer anywhere he wants. Want to go from Auburn to Alabama? go ahead. So many things change year to year in college football that by the time you take the field 50-75% of the guys on the other team won't know you. On transfers, as long as they are legitimate, I wouldn't require any penalty. Sometimes things just don't work out. I think you need the 1 year rule to prevent slimeballs from trying to poach players.[/QUOTE]

I think those are good ideas, but that horse has long left the barn. It isn't just Kentucky who recruits those types of players, they just happen to get more of them than anyone else. With the AAU circuit in BBall, I bet you most of the Top 100 recruits see themselves as lottery or first round picks. Virtually all schools lower academic requirments for athletes for one reason, to get in better players to produce a better product on the field/court. College sports are a minor league in football and Bball. If you gave every kid on the BBall team 1000.00, a month during the season that would not bankrupt any athletice department. Even 500.00. The revenues are there, a huge part of the problem is that the P5 doesn't want to share revenue and re distribute it for the betterment of all athletes in D1, they want to use the revenue for competitve advantages in facilities, coaching hires, amenities etc. The arms race in college sports is the biggest impedement in what you propose. The SEC and their way of doing things is a major issue if you read parts of the email from Wally Renfro to Mark Emmert. The others are trying to keep up.

IF the G5, find themselves frozen out completely by the p5, they should adopt a pay for play system that will give THEM a competitive recruiting advantage over whatever the P5 is doing and stage their own playoff. It won't happen, because most won't have the money, but it would be cool to see.

 

[itgoeslike]

IF the G5, find themselves frozen out completely by the p5, they should adopt a pay for play system that will give THEM a competitive recruiting advantage over whatever the P5 is doing and stage their own playoff. It won't happen, because most won't have the money, but it would be cool to see.

I joked a few weeks ago that the G5 schools should award Corvettes to their top 10 "franchise" players. Relatively speaking it wouldn't cost that much and I suspect we would land some top recruits.

When you examine what happened to SMU in the 1980's and what the P5 are trying to achieve the lines are becoming more and more blurred. The only difference being the money transactions surrounding P5 actions pale in comparison to the dollars SMU was throwing around.

 

[noeynox]

I don't know if you guys are following on Twitter but the plaintiff lawyer Issacson, appears to be killing it. Has Emmert making the plaintiff's case for them. Those guys absolutely did their homework, putting Emmert on blast for the NCAA's "commercial exploitation" mumble jumble. I guess it's only exploitation if the kids get any money from it.

 

[Pat125]

I think, and my "system" is based on the idea, that college athletics should be played by college students who are there to become educated men and women. That some of them are good enough to eventually play professionally is fine. But if that is the only reason they are there, and let's be honest how many Kentucky basketball players would have come to Kentucky had the NBA nor required them to wait a year to be drafted, is to train for the pros, you really don't belong. My system would also put pressure on coaches to find the players who want to be in college. If a coach has to weigh the benefits of a 1 and done, 2 and done player vs going a few years without scholarships, he's going to be very careful. Hey, if you think you have a shot at going deep and adding Joey Jumpshot will put you over the top, you might decide to take the chance and live with a 1 less scholarships for a few years. As far as transfers go, I'd keep the 1 years sit out rule but other than that a guy can transfer anywhere he wants. Want to go from Auburn to Alabama? go ahead. So many things change year to year in college football that by the time you take the field 50-75% of the guys on the other team won't know you. On transfers, as long as they are legitimate, I wouldn't require any penalty. Sometimes things just don't work out. I think you need the 1 year rule to prevent slimeballs from trying to poach players.

I agree with this. These student-athletes should be considered students first. When a student is recruited for a scholarship, the count for scholarships should last for 4 years regardless of whether the student stays at the college. Perhaps an exception could be made if a student leaves the team, but still stays in college. Also, I understand that even when recruiting is done in good faith, a student may still decide to go pro. For that reason, I wouldn't mind increasing the scholarship numbers slightly. This system would curtail the Kentucky style of recruiting.

If this were to somehow make it to the proposal stage, I could see the similar battle lines with the Big Ten on one side and the SEC on the other.

I have some sympathy for Emmert. This P5 autonomy, O'Bannon case, the Penn State and UNC scandal were not his doing. (He botched the Miami scandal letting someone else take the fall, while letting he and his cronies go unscathed.) Ultimately, these things are up to the member presidents. The only exception is he decided the Penn State penalty without it going to the usual channels, but Penn State accepted the penalty.

Emmert's big problem is that the morale of the NCAA has dropped significantly during his reign. And it has nothing to do with the current issues. His leadership style and personality has led to it. His appearance after UConn won the men's BB tournament exemplifies his approach and gross self-importance. I'm afraid I miss Myles Brand's leadership. I'm not sure if he would have been able to overcome the present challenges, but he would have been able to approach it without the need to be the center off attention and without forgetting that the NCAA doesn't just consist of the P5.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

The NCAA's handling of PSU and UNC falls squarely on Emmert's desk. The autonomy is more convoluted, and O'Bannon is tied to rules that were in place before he arrived. That said, Emmert has proven himself to be an utterly terrible leader of an organization.

 

[noeynox]

Is this the end? No one knows. I didn't really start thinking players were getting screwed until the money amounts being handed out became clear to me due to conference realignment and the sheer attempt to crush another conference by what the ACC did to the Big East. They would harm other schools/conferences than brag about how much money they were getting. The schools/ncaa have one to blame but themselves. Their greed is bringing their house of cards to the brink.

http://grantland.com/features/ncaa-amateurism-lawsuit-mark-emmert/

 

[Pat125]

The NCAA's handling of PSU and UNC falls squarely on Emmert's desk. The autonomy is more convoluted, and O'Bannon is tied to rules that were in place before he arrived. That said, Emmert has proven himself to be an utterly terrible leader of an organization.

I agree that Emmert is a terrible leader, and that he was the one that decided Penn State's fate. But unless he directed the infraction's committee to cut UNC a break, this isn't and shouldn't be his responsibility. He normally should not be deciding the fate of schools when there is an allegation of a violation.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

And there it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

https://twitter.com/Andy_Staples/status/480045671941029889

Andy StaplesVerified account‏@Andy_Staples
Delany said Big Ten requires AAU (American Association of Universities) membership upon admission. Nebraska was, but isn't anymore.

 

[upstater]

There is just something fundamentally wrong, to me, where these young men in FB and Men's BBall are part of a revenue generating machine that makes billions of dollars, don't get any money, While Emmert, Conference commissioners, coaches and ADs make millions. For most of these kids they will never be part of an organization that produces that much $, ever again. Where coach K, can make 9 million a year, more than any other coach in American Team Sports.

I know this threatens college sports as I have loved them, but the current setup coupled with the P5 Greed and line of demarcation are absolutely corrupt and the players are getting short changed. Some education these athletes are being afforded at places like Carolina.

A scholarship is more than enough compensation IF the NCAA truly cared about academics.

The whole question is easy to solve. higher academic standards solves all the problems here, because then the pay for players (a scholarship) is real and tangible.

 

[upstater]

the NCAA, the media like ESPN and the fans created a monstrosity and now nobody really knows how to get out of it. Frankly, Johnny Football is just a punk kid without Texas A&M's investment. We'll see what he does in Cleveland...The NCAA basketball tournament out to just divide the money equally among all the schools. End the credit nonsense. End payment for going deep into the tourney. Take the billion dollars or whatever it is they get, take a 3% cut for administration and whatever it costs to run the event and cover the schools' costs and divide the rest by however many NCAA schools there are. UConn is still going to try to win it all. So is Duke and UNC and Kansas and Kentucky. Siena isn't in it to win the NCAA tourney anyway. Let them do whatever they want with it. Kentucky wants to use its share to build yet another practice gym, great. Yale wants to invest it in equipment for the Biology Department, have at it. Bates wants to hire an English Lit professor, Godspeed. Louisville want to hire a pair of whores to keep their basketball and football coaches smiling, more power to them.

So, this would be an incentive for say Albertus Magnus to join D1?

 

[noeynox]

A scholarship is more than enough compensation IF the NCAA truly cared about academics.

The whole question is easy to solve. higher academic standards solves all the problems here, because then the pay for players (a scholarship) is real and tangible.

I don't agree with your opinon. Why do coach K and Saban make the money they do? What does the field hockey coach at UConn make?If all coaches compensation isn't equal all athletes compensation shouldn't be considered equal, but it's just my opinion.

 

[upstater]

Not really. The product in college athletics is Shabazz Nappier or Johnny Manziel playing ball. Same cannot be said for a WalMart employee.

Disagree here. The product is the name on the jersey.

That's also what the NCAA is arguing.

The level of play is higher in the NBDL. How come folks don't buy?

The whole Northwestern case was compared to a case at Brown University a decade ago regarding the labor treatment of TAs.
That's the most apt comparison since you have two groups of students who are bringing in huge revenues for the schools.

 

[upstater]

I don't agree with your opinion. Why do coach K and Saban make the money they do? What does the field hockey coach at UConn make?If all coaches compensation isn't equal all athletes compensation shouldn't be considered equal, but it's just my opinion.

I'm not sure where I said anything about equality. I'm talking about compensation. Unless there were a national rule capping CEO compensation at a level x the average worker's compensation, then how do you distinguish between sports and other businesses? We have the same dynamic with CEO pay all across the country in many corporations. Can that be legislated?

All I was saying is that because schools are NOT getting rich off sports (quite the contrary) then you have to determine whether the current compensation is fair.

Put it this way: I propose there are two routes to go through here. One, pay the players a salary commensurate with, say, what NBDL players earn but don't provide a scholarship or room & board. Two, provide the scholarship only and up standards so that players receive the opportunity at a real education.

 

[noeynox]

My point is really a simple one, these guys can't hide behind amateur status, and claim schools are losing money on sports when they are paying coaches in MBB and CFB insane amounts of money. Its easy to say the schools are losing money on sports and show losses on paper, but if they were bleeding as profusely as you constantly state K wouldn't be getting 9 million, Saban 7, and we wouldn't have just given KO 3 million a year. Why are we not paying our highly succesful and national title winning field hockey coach an amount similar to what the other three title winning coaches make?

Like I said, it doesn't sit well with me, when conference commissioners make 3 million, but players have to be protected from commercial exploitation only when it involves payment to them, they can however be exploited as long as the school is getting the money if Emmert is to be believed from his testimony.

 

[UCername]

If they are considered professionals do their benefits become taxable?

 

[noeynox]

If they are considered professionals do their benefits become taxable?

Why should they? The schools exist as tax sheltered entities, why shouldn't the amateur athlete be viewed the same way? If you were ever injured at work you know that workmans compensation isn't taxable. Is that not income?

 

[UCername]

Why should they? The schools exist as tax sheltered entities, why shouldn't the amateur athlete be viewed the same way? If you were ever injured at work you know that workmans compensation isn't taxable. Is that not income?

Employees of the school are taxed inclusive of fringe benefits, the whole basis of the argument is an athlete is an employee of the school by generating their revenue same as any business model and thus if they want equal treatment they should be taxed equally as well. Workers comp payouts are insurance obligations paid by an insurance company and not the employer, they are not wages or benefits which is what this case is about.

 

[noeynox]

Tax them then. The issue for me is that the kids are the engine that drive the revenue machine, but the NCAA is arguing that they are protecting them from exploitation, by making sure they do not profit from NIL. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?

 

[upstater]

My point is really a simple one, these guys can't hide behind amateur status, and claim schools are losing money on sports when they are paying coaches in MBB and CFB insane amounts of money. Its easy to say the schools are losing money on sports and show losses on paper, but if they were bleeding as profusely as you constantly state K wouldn't be getting 9 million, Saban 7, and we wouldn't have just given KO 3 million a year. Why are we not paying our highly succesful and national title winning field hockey coach an amount similar to what the other three title winning coaches make?

Like I said, it doesn't sit well with me, when conference commissioners make 3 million, but players have to be protected from commercial exploitation only when it involves payment to them, they can however be exploited as long as the school is getting the money if Emmert is to be believed from his testimony.

Maybe Ollie shouldn't have been paid?

Have you seen the subsidy for UConn sports?

So, the flipside of your argument is that you DON'T pay the coaches, then your program craters and becomes irrelevant. And that's why the coaches are paid. It doesn't mean you're making money, just because you're trying to maintain relevancy. You can always pull out altogether.

What is weird though is that parents and the general public seem perfectly willing to shell out $30k a year for a son or daughter to take classes from someone making $2k per class, and you'd think that would bother people more than athletes getting top notch training, scholarship, room & board in return for labor.

 

[Fishy]

I keep seeing Saban's salary as some sort of evidence that schools are making money.

Some are - we're not.

If the NCAA loses this, the P5 adjusts and the water level creeps a little closer to the top of our head.

I think we have more at stake here than most everyone else.

 

[UConnJim]

I keep seeing Saban's salary as some sort of evidence that schools are making money.

Some are - we're not.

If the NCAA loses this, the P5 adjusts and the water level creeps a little closer to the top of our head.

I think we have more at stake here than most everyone else.

I'm not so sure. Virtually all of the reporting and key comments on the P5/Autonomy/full cost of attendance... has come from entities that have the most to lose if the college sports model changes: ESPN, TV networks, Conference commissioners, P5 ADs, P5 coaches, college sports announcers,... Bottom line is that virtually all universities are not making money on college sports, but people are making lots of money on college sports like the Athletic Department administration, Coaches, Cable networks, TV networks, college sports broadcasters, ...

Think about this, ESPN and CBS have committed BILLIONS of dollars to a college sports model that is potentially under attack. Do you think anything they write about the subject is unbiased?

Going to a semi professional sports model will tear at the soul of some P5 universities as well as many other universities. I think it's going to be a tough sell on many university campuses that college athletes are potentially going to receive compensation beyond their room and board that could exceed the pay for TAs and adjunct professors.

I think UConn is committed to competing in the long run and will do what needs to be done. I have the view that from this point forward, any ripple in the college sports landscape is positive for UConn's future.

 

[upstater]

I have no doubt that people like Delany and Slive will continue college sports no matter the ultimate outcome, whether minor league, etc. I do have doubts about fan interest in the longterm.

 

[noeynox]

Maybe Ollie shouldn't have been paid?

Have you seen the subsidy for UConn sports?

So, the flipside of your argument is that you DON'T pay the coaches, then your program craters and becomes irrelevant. And that's why the coaches are paid. It doesn't mean you're making money, just because you're trying to maintain relevancy. You can always pull out altogether.

What is weird though is that parents and the general public seem perfectly willing to shell out $30k a year for a son or daughter to take classes from someone making $2k per class, and you'd think that would bother people more than athletes getting top notch training, scholarship, room & board in return for labor.

The NCAA is better off just saying "these are our rules, the revenues generated are for the schools, and to provide scholarships for the non revenue sports athletes". Problem is they keep trying to make the argument about a level playing field that doesn't exist because the likes of slive and Delany don't want to share revenue any more than they have, and that they are protecting athletes from "commercial exploitation". That is such a weak argument that the plaintiffs appear to be shredding their arguments with relative ease.

And it isn't just about paying coaches, it is about creating other competitive advantages to attract top notch talent. The emails from NCAA executive themselves calling the term student athlete a "hypocrisy" is in itself so damning. I know this is threatning college sports as I have loved it through my UConn tinted bias, but the NCAA's position is laughable.

 

[Fishy]

I think UConn is committed to competing in the long run and will do what needs to be done. I have the view that from this point forward, any ripple in the college sports landscape is positive for UConn's future.

This isn't registering.

Our administrators are making money, our coaches are making money - we're level with the P5 when it comes to expenses.

We're not level when it comes to revenue - we're actually going to make less in a few years than we used to as part of the Big East. Any additional expenses is going to have to be picked up by the University which already kicks in about $18M a year.

Every previous 'ripple' has ultimately been a negative for us - these particular ripples are more of the same.

 

[CL82]

This isn't registering.

Our administrators are making money, our coaches are making money - we're level with the P5 when it comes to expenses.

We're not level when it comes to revenue - we're actually going to make less in a few years than we used to as part of the Big East. Any additional expenses is going to have to be picked up by the University which already kicks in about $18M a year.

Every previous 'ripple' has ultimately been a negative for us - these particular ripples are more of the same.

I hate reading this but I can't say I disagree. Sports at UConn will continue but I am really afraid that we are about to lose our spot at the adult table.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Emmert reminds me of the we've all worked with that sucks at his job but always schmoozed with the right folks and got promoted way above his level (Peter Principle to the Nth degree).

Finally said gets his shot in front of a non-partisan group and has to stand on his merits.

Epic. Fail. Commences.

Joe Nocera's (New York Times) comments on Emmert's testimony. The "comments" contributed by readers are interesting as, well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/o...esident-emmert-testifies.html?ref=sports&_r=0

Emmert must have a PI on Nocera, by now.

 

[noeynox]

As disgusted as I have become of the NCAA, mainly for moving the line in the sand on APR to us twice, while simultaneously letting UNC skate on a much bigger scandal, botching the Miami infractions case, finding no violation of Auburn in the SCam Newton case, it is going to be sad if O'bannon wins this. The college sports we all loved will probably become unrecognizable.

The NCAA however has brought it on themselves, they didn't decide on a stipend because they became altruistic overnight, they realized they had to do something to stem the tide of where their exploitation had taken them. I read yesterday how a Wisconsin basketball player arrived at a practice during the NCAA tournament drinking from a bottle of Nestle water, he was almost tackled by NCAA security because Dasani was the official water of the NCAA tournament, yet they claim they are "protecting" players from exploitation.