I think you will get your wish.
Mark Emmert Proposing Changes in D1 Governance Model
Stupid iPad no paragraphs.
I would say it is a poor carpenter who Blaine's his tools, but I make an exception for iPads and iPhones. Yea, Ef you IPhone, I hate your auto correct.
Yeah auto correct fucks up more times than it helps.
Have an iPad and iPhone. Purchased both in the last three months and I cannot stand how many times it changes words that are not misspelled or just completely butchers words. I'm at the point where I just do not bother fixing it. Drives me nuts. Fingers are too big for the phone.
Simple solution: turn off autocorrect.
is now a verb. Mind fully blown.
...what does it mean?? To make something disappear? Like a poor carpenter makes his tools go away?
just get this guy TFO of the NCAA. Correct me if wrong or have another opinion but he has to be the worst person to run the damn thing. Even the media with no bias (and some with positive bias) have called for him to go with anger. I think it was Cornheiser (sp) or someone usually very tame and a bit if a humorous guy who jusy WENT OFF one day in Emmert and the NCAA. Red faced vitriol. I wanted to applaud but was stunned at the rage he was rightfully showing. Even ruined the SEC and it was an ESPN show. Said the NCAA has a separate set of rules for them, etc. Called Emmert an "abject failure" and even cited the hypocrisy of assumption used to penalize in the usc case but not the osu case. Just ruined the entire institution for a solid 5 mins. Wilbon just let him go off. I think it was when they botched Miami and investigated themselves (lol).
droid here so no patagraphs/spacing at all.
I wouldn't take any anger from an ESPN commentator seriously. The channel has as much journalistic value as a soap opera.
However, I agree that Emmert sucks.
but this was genuine anger on a show and from a person that isn't like that bayless/others crap. Dude went from laughing about the previous topic to just going off. Wilbon was looking shocked and had that look of "is this worth your job?" look. lol
Surprise, surprise: it turns out that Mr. Kornheiser is just another journalist who has no actual idea of how the NCAA works. Emmert is completely separated from the enforcement process: he does not make the rules, he does not interpret the rules, he does not investigate rules violations, he does not determine punishments for violations of rules, and he does not appoint the people who do those things. Mr. Emmert is not a "President" in the CEO sense that we all understand it, the more accurate title for his job would be "Chief Spokesman."
Yes, the Penn State situation was different; he was specifically delegated the task of negotiating a consent agreement with them by the Executive Committee, which is a committee of 16 University Presidents who actually do run the decision-making process for the highest levels of the NCAA.
The Indianapolis Star article (HERE) has quite a few Emmert quotes, including some discussion one or two things that have been discussed as mere speculation in threads here over the past few months, interestingly enough. For example:
"One structural change being discussed is a subdivision within Division I of the power football conferences. Delany said he can see a situation where schools would compete in the same NCAA championship, such as the Division I men’s basketball tournament, “but provide a different package of benefits (for athletes) based on high resource vs. middle resource.”
It also talks about how the power conferences have not made any effort to hold back on their dissatisfaction with the pace of change. The article also mentions the failed initiative to provide an additional stipend to account for the full cost of education (something which Delany sort of brought up in a speech just the other day, I believe). In essence, among the more financially powerful conferences (as well as the less endowed, albeit for different reasons), there seems the growing feeling is that not all votes are equal in NCAA governance.
I still do not understand how that failed; IIRC it wasnt a requirement to grant full cost of attendence scholarships but an option. I mean there are always going to be have and have nots, its a fact of life.
You are a generic 3 star recruit in any sport, you get an offer for FCA from a power school but you know that they get blue chip kids in every year and your chances of "making" it big are slim, you are basically a depth kid.
Or you go to the in-state mid major school on a traditional scholarship, become a 2/3 year starter (because the competition on your own team isnt as tough), and get drafted in a late round.
With scholarship limits in every sport there is no skin off of the mid major's backs (e.g. the Power schools hoarding talent like in the '60/'70's). I would think that even if a high level mid major (Boise) offered a FCoA scholarship, that no University that couldnt afford it would follow simply to keep up with the jones. You would have a revolt from the faculty/GAs/students and watch your enrollment plummet.
TL:DR FCoA scholarships are perks just like waterfalls in Alabama's locker room. Your not going to get those at Northeast Southwest Mobile College A&M.
One thing I wonder, and if you go back in history it's one of how/why the NCAA actually exists, is how these changes will affect the ability for the NCAA to exist at all. Many of the rulings to allow the NCAA to ever form and continue have to do with amateurism, and non-monopoly principles and all sorts of crazy things. Going back to the early 20th century and reading about all the things to justify the existance of our current sports model is crazy, and it's crazy how different life would be today if some of the things would have been even a little different.
My guess is that college sports is too much of a part of American society now that no politicians will simply let it die for fear of losing a ton of voting support (this should not break into a political argument), but it is interesting to think about the things they would have to agree upon with the supreme court and everything else if there are anything close to significant changes made to the model.