Mark Emmert isn’t the biggest putz at the NCAA.

That would be whoever gives Emmert PR advice.

Dude, there’s a reason Stacey Osburn rarely comments publicly about knotty issues.  You might want to ask her about that.

About these ads

24 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

24 responses to “Mark Emmert isn’t the biggest putz at the NCAA.

  1. Scott W.

    Looking out for the little guy by holding everyone’s money.

  2. AusDawg85

    He’s right. How can the NCAA reap millions if the damn greedy players own the rights to their likenesses? The kids will get their chance after college.

    Level the Playing Field!

  3. Dog in Fla

    You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. It is an area which we call:

    (a.) Area 51,
    (b.) The NCAA,
    (c.) made up and flagellant or
    (d.) stuff Emmert says

  4. Monday Night Frotteur

    One very odd feature of the compensation-cap debates is seeing fans of power programs argue in favor of greater competitive balance. For example, I’ve seen Michigan, Ohio State, LSU and Alabama fans make essentially the same argument Emmert is making (e.g. “if schools had to competitively bid for players I would become less interested in the sport because it would ruin competitive balance”). Those programs’ fanbases have been massive beneficiaries of poor latitudinal and longitudinal competitive balance. The Michigan and OSU fans would have enjoyed the sport much, much less if there had been more robust competitive balance in the B1G over the past 40 years, and I don’t see any way that Alabama fans would enjoy it if, say, an inverse order draft had been in existence the last few years.

    • Yup.

      I understand that the NCAA has to make that argument for the antitrust case, but Emmert’s comment only serves to show how slim a reed amateurism is balanced on.

      • Monday Night Frotteur

        Emmert and his administrative cohort are where the MLB owners were in 1975.

        I think Emmert’s smart play would be to drop faux-amateurism and fight for real deregulation of recruiting down to the conference level. He could try to preserve a smaller, smarter NCAA as a body that does nothing but regulate play on the field/court and leaves the rest to the market (or at least to the conferences). That’s an NCAA that provides a real service even in a deregulated world, and he’d be getting exponentially better PR. As it stands, I could see him (and the entire NCAA, really) being eliminated quickly after losing a big anti-trust case, and he’ll go down as college sports’ Erich Honecker as opposed to a more celebrated character like Mikhail Gorbachev…

  5. paul

    More and more I’m starting to think the member institutions put Emmert in place precisely because he is this clueless.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      It does appear that they are setting him up to be the fall guy. How can anybody be as stupid as Emmert appears to be? Particularly someone who acts like he thinks he’s a genius.

  6. CrewsellKing

    As much as I hate Emmert, he’s actually right on this one. You don’t want a program like Oklahoma State becoming the Yankees of CFB and buying every 5 star recruit there is. The players deserve to get paid, but you do not want the “Hey, go to this school and I promise to endorse your image with this cash right here/”

    • But it’s okay for T. Boone Pickens to lavish millions on OSU in order for the school to buy 5-star recruits indirectly through upgraded facilities, coaching salaries, etc.

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        Not to mention Phil Knight and Oregon.

      • CreswellKing

        Absolutely. Because even with super nice facilities, OSU doesn’t get 25 five-star recruits a year.

        We both know they’re not the same thing and direct payments to a student would definitely influence where they choose to play. Case in point: SMU in the ’80s.

        • But OSU gets more than it did before, no?

          Face it, the money’s already being paid, albeit indirectly.

          • CreswellKing

            Certainly it helps. But not to the same degree a brand new Trans Am was the losing bid for Eric Dickerson.

            • Then we’re just arguing over a matter of degree. The system is already corrupted.

              • CreswellKing

                To an extent, yes. But there’s still a huge difference between the two. Money spent on facilities/lockerrooms/etc reach a point where there are extremely diminishing returns. Direct payments to players would never have that. So that naturally evens things out. Either you’re a program with top-notch facilities or you’re not.

                Right now, no recruit is choosing OSU over Texas purely because of the facilities. OSU having nicer facilities lets them compete with Texas, but it won’t single-handedly win them a recruit.

                I guess I’m just repeating my argument, but I’ll summarize with this: I’m ok with money corrupting the competitive balance of coaches salaries and facilities world of college football, but I wouldn’t like money corrupting what schools could directly pay players.

  7. Skeptic Dawg

    I fail to see why college kids deserve to paid above and beyond what they are currently given. I appreciate the fine Senator’s work on this matter, and I fully grasp the far reaching ramifications of the current legal battles across the US. But why should these kids receive MORE than what they are currently receiving? Just because someone else is raking in the cash? If my company triples their revenue this year, should I expect a larger paycheck next year? And yes, these kids are being paid…in the form of education, training, meals, housing, medical treatment, stipends etc. The NCAA, conferences and schools have certainly not without fault. But everyone involved is in the process of destroying what we so dearly love. And for what?

    • If my company triples their revenue this year, should I expect a larger paycheck next year?

      If you contributed to that? Hells, yeah. Especially if the company makes you work longer hours than it did before.

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        Or if you were directly involved in improving the product that caused sales to go through the roof.

        • Cousin Eddie

          But that doesn’t mean you will, necessarily. I am not against more for the players but to say that because your company, i.e. school, makes more you should to is a poor argument. What does the schools that loose money do reduce scholarships or ask the athletes to pay more of their education cost because the team sucked?

    • 1996 Dog

      They should get whatever they’d get in a free market, which is probably a good bit more than they’re getting.

    • Gaskilldawg

      I guess you are okay with your company’s competitors getting together and deciding what you get paid. That is what the NCAA does. The 300+ teams decide what scholarship benefits UGA pays.
      That is what killed the “actual cost of attendance ” scholarship. UGA can afford it but Savannah State and Nichols State and others such as them voted it down.
      Anyway, I will bet you make a good salary so if is okay for your competitors to limit your compensation when your company does well.