I think a timeline would show that Emmert's transgressions come to light after he departs for a new job. Facts seem to show a line of sacrificed subordinates. Experience has shown me that people who go to great lengths to protect false integrity tend to be vindictive against those who question that integrity--------until exposed, for good. He is really starting to look like the worst kind of weasel.
I completely agree with this. High level execs like this, IMNSHO, go to great lengths, to make sure that they have plenty of people to blame when things go wrong. I'd go as far to say, that the vast majority of their time, is not spent on actually thinking and working amd problem solving to get a specific task or job done, but the vast majority of effort goes into the "problem solving" of the simply CYA principle. Alleviating themselves from any blame for whatever course of action occurs.
It can indeed take the form of vindictive behavior to both subordinates that report to said exec, or to people that have absolutely no personal connection at all, other than through whatever projects are involved.
I still don't know of anything specific that would give Emmert motivation to inflict damage on the University of Connecticut, other than to promote is own agenda of CYA. And that certainly fits the bill. Holding UCONN feet to the fire, b/c of documented rules transgressions with the NCAA (irrespective of how dumb those rules might be), is a feather in Emmert's cap, especially since he did hold the position he did at UCONN for a couple years. I really don't think there is anything more to that, than simply hubris. People, often make the mistake, of assuming because people are in position to make decisions that have very wide ranging and powerful effect, don't make choices based on the same kind of human emotions and thought that people use to choose to either go to somebody's wedding or kid's birthday party or something.
As far as the dodging of investigations, etc. that Pudge brings up. My guess is that if the legal authority were put in action to require Emmert to provide some kind of testimony or evidence, or whatever - were to be put in action, then indeed, Emmert would be answering questions. In the absence of that, there is no reason whatsoever for this guy, to simply volunteer information that could be damaging to himself.
I'm wondering Pudge, if there is something more, that you aren't saying. I really know of nothing, that the guy did that was inappropriate, other than being incompetent at the task he was charged with regarding the UCONN 2000 mission project, adn skipping town before the really hit the fan regarding the project.
Personally, with hindsight focus of course, the people that hired Emmert, and monitored, and worked with him, shoulder as much blame as Emmert does for the screwups with UCONN 2000.
