Mark Emmert Q and A #AskEmmert
Well, this went about as well as expected.
http://deadspin.com/the-askemmert-q-a-is-going-poorly-1564610605
Emmert did lay out this gem:
Emmert did, however, say that scholarship athletes are taking seats from paying students. So.
April 18th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
I don't know who Josh Williams is, but this may be the best question of all:
Can you explain amateurism and not paying players without using circular logic?
Anyone else notice all the critics of the NCAA have is snark and misinformation? If their case is so compelling, start arguing it and stop hiding behind snippy remarks.
I agree with you, in part. When it comes to the debate over paying players, it is important to make substantive arguments because, IMO, both sides have valid points.
However, when it comes to other NCAA issues (botched investigations, inconsistent sanction regimes, rules on food and recruiting contact, etc.), there is no debate - all you can do is shake your head at NCAA incompetence and make snippy comments .
In related news, looks like the NCAA wants to do away with immediate eligibility for hardship transfers - in part due to the flak they receive for granting/rejecting certain claims. Seems like a rule just to insulate themselves from criticism.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10802216/ncaa-proposal-for…
I can think of three arguments typically made for the status quo. I'll argue each after the list.
- Title IX restrictions
- Corrupting influence of money
- Language about fighting for alma mater
Title IX: Given that Title IX is law, I think it's the best argument. However, I don't understand how maintaining very high level athletic opportunities for an equal number of men and women benefits women in general. I'd prefer the schools call the football and basketball players employees similar to lab assistants and pay them full cost of attendance plus a couple grand a month. They could eliminate some of the high level teams and their huge budgets in favor of a much larger IM / club offering that would allow more students more athletic opportunity.
Money Corrupts: Sure, money corrupts. Brady Hoke's pay package for 2013 was about $4.154MM. That's about 48K per scholarship football player. The athletic department is awash in money it doesn't know what to do with--so it's building enormous facilities for non-revenue sports based on future earnings using the university's credit rating. That's corrupting money that is also a huge, huge public issue if the various legal challenges go very wrong for the NCAA.
Fighting for Alma Mater: If that's the case, then go the Ivy League route. If it's about alma mater, then the snarky Twitter guys are totally right. The various athletic jobs should be volunteer positions stafffed by dedicated alumni instead of millionaire mercenaries.
You've read those arguments before on this board a thousand times. Don't be purposely obtuse. The point was troll Emmert. Kinda hard to make substantive argument in 140 characters.
April 18th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
Oh yeah Mark Emmert. Out of touch.
April 18th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
I am in no way in favor of a direct pay for play model. This would end college athletics as we know it. It just would.
Emmert was on Mike & Mike this morning and although most believe him to be the root of all evil some of his thoughts were interesting. If college athletes are considered employees of the college and are paid for playing on a team there would be no stopping schools/coaches from "hiring" older players. Labor laws would apply so therefore you couldn't discrimmate because of age.
Why would you want to waste time on a 18 year old who you may have to develop over the period of 2-3 years when you could get a 25 year old low lying NFL guy or Canadian league player?
I am in favor of things like open/unlimited meal plans, doing away with yearly scholarships, or things like offering scholarships for degrees no matter how long or time period it took to earn that degree.
Because college athletes can't of don't have the time for a part time job I'd be in favor of creating an expense account that would be the equivalent of the amount earned working a decent part time job.
April 18th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
That sounds like a concocted argument to keep the status quo. There's still the 4 years of eligibility and most of those NFL guys have already used at least 3 of their 4 so they could only come back for 1 year anyway. And if they are going to go back to school, play for a year and get their degree I don't know if I could really say there's anything wrong with a young man getting his college degree. They might even take it more seriously. Also, while in your mind it might be fun to go back to college at the age of 28, in reality a lot of what college students do seemed cool back then seems dumb by that time in your life so I don't know if it would be nearly the problem Emmert makes it out to be.
(As an aside, Maurice Clarett lost his bid to overturn the minimum age rule, which the NFL defended as being necessary because 18-year olds are not physically ready for the rigors of the NFL and would be put at risk. I don't see a parallel argument for requiring NCAA "employee-athletes" to be students or limited to 4 years of eligibility)
Think of it another way: Could the NFL or NBA cap the number of years a player could play? In the NFL, that might be remotely justifiable for many positions as a safety measure to prevent CTE or other later in life problems. I would guess the NFL would lose a challenge from the Player's Union. This is meant as an extreme example, but it is illustrative for the sorts of issues that the NCAA and its schools might face if fully unionized.
This is all not to say that unionization is THE END OF WORLDZ, but Emmert is probably right that two pillars of college sports as currently imagined (athletes attend school and limited eligibility) may not stand.
April 18th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
why are you so stupid?
April 18th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Do you think slave owners would have prolonged slavery just a bit longer if they had called it amateurism?
What in thee hell was their purpose for doing this?
I immediately started cackling. Such an obvious disaster in the making:
JP Morgan did a #askJPM last fall that was a mess. Of course, the completely self-unaware Emmert has a MUCH lower approval rating than JP Morgan.
Of all of these, Mark Emmert needs to answer this one most urgently...
#askemmert is this a cyst?
— Tim Fletcher (@FletcherShow) April 18, 2014
The four years of eligibilty rule is premised on the players being students, not employees -- and the NCAA still being around and everyone agreeing to its rules. (It's not a coincidence that four years is the amount of time it typically takes to earn a degree.)
Once college football teams become merely collections of paid employees of schools, all assumptions and premises go out the window -- no longer operative.
"The biggest problem was, the NCAA has historically had all kinds of, I don't know how to describe it [except to say] dumb rules about food. The infamous one is you can provide between meals a snack, but you can't provide a meal. Well, then you got to define what's the difference between a snack and a meal? So it was literally the case that a bagel was defined as a snack -- unless you put cream cheese on it. Now it becomes a meal. That's absurd." ~ Mark Emmert
IhateMarkEmmertandtheNCAAbecausetheymakebillionsof dollarswhilecollegeathletesarestarving.
Signed,
The Ignorant, ESPN-fed Masses
IhateMarkEmmertandtheNCAAbecausetheymakebillionsof dollarswhilecollegeathletesareI'mstarving.
I'm sorry but the whole 'I'm starving' thing is BULLSHIT. Do athletes not have access to the dining halls?
Remember the Fab Five doc where Jalen said they all got hooked up with free food? These kids aren't even close to starving.
and the dining halls opens and close at certain times and they have practices/games/classes to deal with so they missed either breakfast, lunch or dinner. They sometimes go through day or night hungry.
There is a lot of truth on what Napier have said about going to bed starving.
Those poor college athletes with their full rides, free gym memberships, and meal plans.
World class tutoring, woman lusting after them, get to be on ESPN.....
April 18th, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^
I get it, I'm jealous. I have $43K of student loan debt. I played college baseball while being a full time student and got very little scholarship money. I get that I brought the university or hte NCAA no money and probably cost them a lot. But, ultimately I don't want these kids to get money (while in school) because I want them to suck it and either agree to accept the deal of being a student athlete or don't. But don't take the deal, then complain about it later. Take a stand, don't accept the deal, and fight the battle. But, if you accept the terms selfishely because you feel that's your best opportunity, then complain about it later and fight against the very people that gave you an opportunity makes you a hypocrite IMO.
All that said I totally agree the NCAA model is outdated. There are tons of rules that could be changed. They should be able to sign LOIs any time. They should be able to leave without penalty if coaches leave or are fired. There should be no way the Saban's of the world can get rid of kids they are at the bottom of the depth charts. Give them 4 full years guranteed with the full cost of attendance. Give them medical coverage to cover unforseen complications that crop up after leaving school. Give them full meals covered, and I don't even mind having some sort of account where they can make money for their likeness as long as they cannot access it until they leave college. But, I don't want them making money beyond what a normal college student would have while still in college. I also would like to require all athletes live on campus in sport-only dorms so that there is a little more accountability on behavior. I think a lot of problems happen when high profile athletes live off campus, especially 18 and 19 year olds. If a 21 or 22 year old wants to live off-campus or has a family, fine. But, athletes in their first 2-3 years should not be living off-campus and are not ready for that amout of freedom. They need to be in a sports-dorm with resident advisors and resources available to them and monitoring what they're doing.
I agree with pretty much everything you've stated.
If the current system was just tweaked, massaged and adjusted I think it could easily provide everything.
But, I don't want them making money beyond what a normal college student would have while still in college
Why is this up to you or anyone else? One of my best friends was in Ross and the kid was a virtual genius. He could have been working in commodities trading full time without a degree and was working with his connections in the field and programming as early as junior year of high school. He made almost a 100K/year while working part-time in college (he just wanted the 4 year college experience). If you have unique talents, you should be allowed to exploit them.
I'm not in favor of the school's directly paying players, but why shouldn't an athlete be able to sell their likeness? Manziel/Tebow/etc. were already plastered all over the media all day long anyways so who is hurt if Gatorade wants to pay them to sip a drink for a 30 second ad?
Who said its up to me? No one cares what I think, other than for the purpose of discussion. I'm just giving my opinion here. But, since you replied I'll engage. I guess part of my problem is that many college-age student athletes IMHO cannot handle fame and financial success. Now, I'm obviously sweeping very broad strokes and making some pretty big generalizations. But, many of these athletes tend to come from socio-economic backgrounds that don't lend to the liklihood of making good decision with new found fame and fortune. They didn't come from families with parents that are married and educated and they don't have the kind of support that many traditional college students do.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing after the kid-genius started making money he didn't start doing recreational drugs, going to crazy parties, sexually assulting women, getting into bar fights, etc. But, that's exactly what a whole bunch of kids will do with fame and fortune...heck they alredy do. But, with the access money gives you my hunch is it will only get worse. So, as I suggested, put the money athletes make from their likiness into an account that they can access once they are done with school, but don't let them have access to it as a student.
Haha, well there you go. I wouldn't have a problem withdrawing based on need. But, it would have to be an amount adaquate to live at a college student level....not enough to drive a Nissan 350z, have diamond earings, get a ton of tattoos, etc. Oh wait, that was T. Pryor and he already did that ha.
Should an Atheltic Department know what semester it is?
They ain't come here to teach school.
somebody should have asked about the hypocrisy that coaches can leave a school whenever they want and go to another one that wants them but players have to sit out a year and can be blocked from going certain places
Supposedly Emmert also said that "If UConn wants to feed Shabazz breakfast in bed, they can."