NCAA President Mark Emmert is an ass
With name, image and likeness rights becoming a boiling point for college sports, NCAA president Mark Emmert said Tuesday that granting athletes such rights would be an "existential threat" to the collegiate model.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:09 PM ^
The NCAA needs an existential threat
September 25th, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
It’s only a threat to the Millions they profit from kids every year. What a Jack ass.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:39 PM ^
Baseball owners used to pay their players a relative pittance, then they started getting tv money, and the players got a piece. Do you think the owners are doing less well now vs. then? Even taking inflation out of the equation, do you really think they're worse off?
Teams worry they'll make less money if they have to give a cut of a #2 jersey to Charles Woodson because it's got his name on it??!? No, they're going to make a great deal MORE.
Emmert's an ass, and the NCAA is a cesspool of vile disgusting filth the likes of which Caligula wouldn't have touched, but his concern is NOT for lost revenue, and anyone arguing otherwise is really not seeing the big picture here.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:58 PM ^
How would the NCAA or schools not lose money ? I think players should be payed (only cus I want Uofm to have a football advantage) but paying player should means less money for schools.
September 25th, 2019 at 4:16 PM ^
Let's pretend for a moment that there's a Michigan donor willing to give money, let's say $300k just as a random out of the blue number to a #1 overall recruit. Let's say suddenly the NCAA says that money is ok. Well, first, LOTS of donors would be willing to pony up the $300k, and thus, it won't be $300k it'll be more like $10M+ as it is for #1 draft picks. The NCAA gets a piece of all that. Thus ... more money! Magic, isn't it?
September 26th, 2019 at 2:30 AM ^
That works for the big schools. No one is worried about them. It’s the small schools who will have no chance. Money won’t just be added. Obviously the NCAA doesn’t agree with you, since they are so against it. I’m sure they have a lot more time and resources Into he research Than you.
September 26th, 2019 at 9:32 AM ^
I'm also sure I have a lot better guess why they're against it than you, what's your point?
The NCAA isn't saying they're against it for loss of revenue, you think that, without evidence. I'm indicating your opinion is in error. History shows with near perfect consistency such a plan would increase the NCAA's revenues. History also shows the NCAA has very little regard to what's best for small schools, but what's best for itself.
The near certain probability that revenue will go up and the historical fact that small school needs, while existent, are a secondary concern to NCAA desires means there's more to their thinking than revenue.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
Mark Emmert needs to be punched in his stupid face
September 25th, 2019 at 4:36 PM ^
You can disagree with Emmert.
You can disagree stridently, vehemently, and with all the passion in your heart.
Advocating, recommending, suggesting, or in any way approving of violence is and should be ALWAYS unacceptable. He's a person trying to do a job. You don't know what he knows, you won't ever know what he knows, and whether you think you have all the variables or not, you don't. Nothing good can come from your post.
I understand your intent, but your post is disgusting and the moderators should have a policy to delete any post like it.
September 25th, 2019 at 5:31 PM ^
Seriously? Violence is never acceptable? Under any circumstances?
What color is the sky on your planet?
Also, pretty sure that was a joke.
September 25th, 2019 at 6:08 PM ^
He's celebrating the idea of a person being assaulted over a game.
I'm entirely ok with my own sense of pragmatism with regard to the use of force. In specific situations under specific circumstances. Over a decision regarding a game? What color is the sky on YOUR planet?!?
You don't get to decide what's a joke or not. And while he was likely being facetious, ask Thomas Becket how well he enjoyed Henry II's facetious comment...
September 25th, 2019 at 6:35 PM ^
I suggest we organize a security detail to stand watch over Mark Emmert's stupid face...
September 25th, 2019 at 7:01 PM ^
Sorry Mr. Emmert.
I don't really want to punch you in your stupid face
September 25th, 2019 at 8:18 PM ^
Punch him in the dick instead.
September 25th, 2019 at 7:10 PM ^
I'll bet you're fun at parties.
September 25th, 2019 at 9:38 PM ^
Sometimes it just simply boils down to this:
Violence, Violence, it's the only thing that will make you see sense...https://youtu.be/pMhjB4-NCiA
September 25th, 2019 at 8:35 PM ^
Good lord, get off your high horse. He didn't suggest punching him in his smart face.
September 25th, 2019 at 9:57 PM ^
Yes, yes- this...
...on a blog focused 99.9% on football, the least violent of sports.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:18 PM ^
Agree with all of this, but isn't this old news? Still, glad to have something to talk about other than last Saturday.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:19 PM ^
He isn't wrong. That's the whole point, they are trying to change the model.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:21 PM ^
He is not wrong. It is an existential threat to the collegiate model. The problem is the collegiate model needs to be blown up, and it will take an existential threat to make it happen. Here is to hoping the image and likeness rights issue is what finally allows it to happen.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
It's the only argument they have left. Nothing legal or logical works. Only a scare tactic to convince millions of college football fans that it's all going to be over remains.
Things will fundamentally change, so they're going to need to work hard to come up with a new model that works. Emmert will retire because he doesn't want to work like that. Why would he, when he's been doing nothing and claiming wins due to the sports popularity for years?
September 25th, 2019 at 3:45 PM ^
The thing is, he'd still get paid. Like, why he would care about other people profiting is weird because it's unlikely to come out of his pockets. It's external money that the NCAA wouldn't have had anyway.
September 25th, 2019 at 4:39 PM ^
"More for others = less for me" is a way of life for these people regardless of its truthfulness.
September 25th, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
An existential threat to their cash cow he means...
September 25th, 2019 at 3:34 PM ^
Well...who would you get to replace him cause x and y ain't coming here. It's all Lloyd Carr's fault!
/s
September 25th, 2019 at 3:55 PM ^
Emmert was born an asshole. His mother had to tie a pork chop around his neck to get the dog to play with him. (I know, old guy joke that was funny when I was in the 2nd grade).
I've had no use for the NCAA since when they failed to shut down Penn State when the pedophile farm they had going there came to light.
September 26th, 2019 at 5:29 AM ^
More old guy jokes! Never heard that one, myself. (This is the first old guy joke I have heard in years that didn't derive its alleged humor from being offensive.)
September 25th, 2019 at 4:02 PM ^
Known. Water = wet
September 25th, 2019 at 4:19 PM ^
I don't know why that comment makes him an ass. He is stating a fact. The vast majority of member universities of the NCAA are not going to run professional sports teams. I don't know why so many supposed fans of the college game want to see a core tenet like amateurism dismantled.
September 25th, 2019 at 4:37 PM ^
What? you've been at this blog for 9 years and you have still not been disabused of the notion that "amateurism" is anything more than a bad joke?
September 25th, 2019 at 7:43 PM ^
I hope that is sarcasm
September 25th, 2019 at 6:15 PM ^
Most of those Universities are not running a good program even now. If they are barely breaking even and consistently pulling in classes ranked outside top 50, they are not competitive. They are not attracting the top flight talent which are going to a handful of programs. So if NCAA legalizes payments to football players, these Universities would still attract the same players they are attracting now.
Nothing would change for them. Would it?
September 25th, 2019 at 4:42 PM ^
Mark Emmert, as we all know, can and has overlooked a lot of things, but the MOMENT someone threatens the money.....well......now it is an "existential threat".
September 25th, 2019 at 4:54 PM ^
(Name checks out)... Cry more...
September 25th, 2019 at 4:56 PM ^
You folks really want "pay for play" college ball?
Be careful what you ask for...
Not that I agree with the NCAA as it currently operates, but I think pay for play ball is a mistake. Furthermore, how much does a UM undergrad degree cost these days, last I checked it was somewhere around $457,000.
September 25th, 2019 at 5:01 PM ^
He's absolutely right. If we allow players to take money without limit, all parity will disappear. The top ten or so wealthiest teams will get all the top players and the rest will have no chance to compete. Eventually, the non-competitive programs will either shut down or break away and form their own amateur league.
September 25th, 2019 at 6:17 PM ^
Those programs are not attracting enough good players to maintain parity even now. Nothing would change for them. If anything, they would be free from competing against Alabama and Ohio State and can better invest their money to other student athletes.
September 25th, 2019 at 6:56 PM ^
Parity? What are you smoking, man?
September 26th, 2019 at 11:40 AM ^
True, but even the wealthy programs who are serious about their core mission, like Michigan, will not participate in anything but pure amateur competition.
September 25th, 2019 at 5:16 PM ^
He would have a much better argument if he was not getting $2.4 million a year on backs of these athletes.
September 25th, 2019 at 5:28 PM ^
Can't have anyone ruin their exploitative for-profit grift.
September 25th, 2019 at 6:47 PM ^
Is there ANYONE that can make a argument WITHOUT using the word existential threat????...ugh
September 25th, 2019 at 9:23 PM ^
The NCAA governing body is the true threat.
September 25th, 2019 at 9:46 PM ^