Somebody Muzzle Mark Emmert

[Stray_Dog]

I actually like that idea from Freescooter - have the scholarship count against the school for 4 years. Interesting.

Of course Calipari would have to finally leave for the NBA because his sham setup would blown to smithereens.

But what is the penalty to the kid that leaves early? Sure the school pays with a reduced allotment of scholarships, but what happens to this kid? He chooses to leave to go PRO, what does he owe the school? I say make him pay back the balance of the scholarship he is then forfeiting and what happens if he wants to come back after his playing career is over? That is the risk you take by leaving early, you will then have to pay for your education like everyone else.

Of course, those that are receiving scholarships should also be taking real accredited courses. Anything less than that and it is my belief that this scholarship would be meaningless. A scholarship should mean and not just imply, you will get a meaningful accredited degree with successful use of your athletic scholarship. Leave early and we make no promises except you will owe the university the balance of their investment.

Example of ways out, what about a kid wanting to transfer. (this is the area where the NCAA should be acting as arbiter) The two schools (the one who has kid enrolled and the one that wants to enroll the kid) will have to work out meaningful compensation regarding the merits of the scholarships ( the one that was awarded and the new one being awarded)

Graduate early and we promise you that you will have a meaningful degree and owe the university nothing. Decide to stay on to get a Masters degree and you will be able to use the balance of your scholarship to that goal. Again if you graduate and leave you forfeit the balance of your scholarship, but if a school wants to make a contract with a student to add a provision allowing them to sustain their scholarship indefinitely then this is okay but should not be required. If said scholarship is offered indefinitely, the university runs the risk of reducing their scholarship allotments. But if a student leaves and says he will not return, the university needs to get something back from this student-athlete.

All of this is JMO!

 

[freescooter]

stray dog,

I don't think anything happens to a kid who leaves early. he leaves early and makes big bucks in the NFL or the NBA or he doesn't make big bucks and bounces around the D-leauge or Europe for a few years then does whatever he does. He can come back to get his degree but its on his nickle, not the school's this time, basically he is just like anyone else once he decides to leave. If in 2 or 5 or 7 years he decides he wants to return and get a degree he does whatever any person who left UConn after 2 years would do. I have to admit I'm not sure what that is. I agree entirely that players ought to get a true education and I don't have an issue with guys who finish in 4 years or 3 years using the remaining scholarship years toward graduate degrees or professional degrees. But it has to be at the same school. And no more of this extra year of eligibility, either. You have your 5 years to play 4. You graduate in 4, but only played 3, you're welcome back to play another as long as you are enrolled in a Masters degree or even a second bachelor's. But if you decide that UConn has a better Masters program in English than Michigan State, and you want to go to UConn, you don't get to play football and you don't get your extra years of scholarship.

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.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

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

Exactly. The Walmart equivalency is the stuff on the shelves; the stuff that leaves the store in shopping carts; the stuff from companies like P & G or Bristol Meyers.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

That's what I'm rooting for too and we're winning. His calling 8th graders "student athletes", calling student athletes "full time athletes", and proclaiming that all but 25 or so ADs are operating at a loss are my favorites. There's something going on with his chair while he's testifying too (literally, his chair keeps giving out from under him apparently).

There's squirming and then there's the power squirm. Hopefully, he's being forced into the latter. Better yet, I hope he soaks through his clothes. Ever see Patrick Ewing on the foul line? A pure Gatorade moment.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I'd do 2 other things. First I'd make scholarships guaranteed for 5 years for basketball and 6 for football. give players an additional year to complete their degrees at no cost. Second, I penalize schools where players leave early for the pros. Guy signs a pro contract after his second year, you can't reuse that one until his class graduates. So under my scenario, Texas A&M would have 84 rather than 85 for 2014 and 2015 since Johnny football left. UConn basktball would have 12 instead of 13 for the upcoming season because Daniels left. kentucky basketball would owe the NCAA scholarships for the next decade. Thi swould end the charade that college athletics are about STUDENT-athletes. it would force coaches to look at who they are recruiting. And it would let kids know that they are going to be able to get a degree when they are finished playing. Do you know why coaches and ADs love football players to finish high school early come to campus in January rather than September? They will tell you its because they have a semester to adjust, learn the playbook and get in shape. But if you get them privately, and push hard, they will admit that they hate having to provide scholarships to guys who are no longer players. Seniors get scholarships for the 2nd semester but don't play, don't practice, don't contribute at all. They'd much rather have that final semester of scholarship end with the end of the football season.[/QUOTE]

How would penalizing schools for early entrants stop the problem. If I recruit a kid who I think will be a four year player, but he has a great season and catches the eyes of several NBA GMs, he is going to leave early. What could a coach do to stop that? Hope his players are quite that good? Daniels is a great example. I think most of us believe he would have greatly benefited from a fourth year. Going into the tourney, he probably was more likely to return. Then bam, we make run, he puts up 27 point game, and now the agents and GMs come calling. How would a coach stop that? So now you penalize a program because a kid made a personal business decision.

I agree with your scholarship idea, but there is no good and legal way to stop kids from leaving early. Nor should there be.

 

[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.