The catch is that he doesn’t have a clue how to go about doing that.
“We used to predominantly not make comments on cases,” Emmert said. “We’ve started providing a lot more information and in some respects, we’ve provided lots of people ammunition to thump us with. We have to provide more information or we have to go back the other way and say, ‘Look, we can’t comment on this.’
“Right now, we’re kind of stuck in the middle here, and we need to provide you all with a lot more information and be as forthright as we can about it. We’re working on it. It’s going to take us a while.”
He’s been on the job less than half a year and already has more missteps than competent adminstrators make in ten.
It doesn’t make it any easier that he’s still in a fundamental state of denial over the biggest problem he’s faced.
“We try hard to get it right every time,” Emmert said. “Getting it right is often in the eye of the beholder. The cases we saw this fall were highly controversial and highly debatable. I understand that, and some of them were even enormously frustrating to me.
“I said very loud and clear that I think it’s absolutely a fundamentally wrong for a father to try to sell the services of his son or daughter to the highest bidder, to a university. We ought never to allow that to happen, but yet, having not anticipated that, we didn’t have any rule or structure that said it was a violation of any of our rules. I found that grossly inappropriate that didn’t have a structure in which we could say, ‘No, you can’t do that.’
“There was no evidence that money had changed hands and there was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with it. We would up making a decision that felt to many people morally objectionable, but that fit the facts and the circumstances.
“We find ourselves making those kinds of judgment calls often.”
Yet, not often enough for Emmert to be ready for a father pimping his son to the highest bidder. Maybe Emmert wants us to believe Cecil Newton was the first parent to make the attempt.