Hi. We’re the NCAA. You may remember us from such hits as this…
“One of the grave dangers stemming from our love of sports is that the sports themselves can become too big to fail, indeed, too big to even challenge,” Emmert said. “The result can be an erosion of academic values that are replaced by the value of hero worship and winning at all costs. All involved in intercollegiate athletics must be watchful that programs and individuals do not overwhelm the values of higher education.”
… and this.
Ed Ray, the executive committee chair and Oregon State president, said university presidents and chancellors let the NCAA know at a meeting a year ago that a change in the culture of college athletics is needed.
“They said, ‘We’ve had enough. This has to stop. We have to reassert our responsibilities and charge to oversee intercollegiate athletics,’” Ray said. “So the first question you asked is, ‘Does this send a message?’ The message is, the presidents and the chancellors are in charge.”
Now you may wonder what all that high falutin’ language means in the real world. Not to worry, people. We’re on the mother.
Boosters would be allowed to contribute directly to the compensation of coaches, potentially controlling more of the terms under which coaches are paid, if a new NCAA proposal is adopted.
Under the plan, described in a 12-page NCAA document obtained by The Chronicle,boosters could come up with their own bonuses instead of giving their money to the athletic department and hoping that they would have the influence to get it written into a coach’s contract, one NCAA rules expert says.
Such a move, which would have to be approved by universities, could prove problematic if a booster gained too much control and later committed NCAA violations.
“Could prove problematic”? ’Ya think? Because nothing says the presidents and chancellors are in charge like giving Bobby Lowder a green light to buy coaches.
Oh, and tucked down a little further in the article is this:
One of the biggest proposed changes could be a philosophical one, as the NCAA recognizes that a guiding principle of its rules—competitive equity—may no longer be a priority.
“The playing field is not and has never been and never will be level,” said James F. Barker, president of Clemson University and chair of the NCAA working group that came up with the proposed changes. “To say the NCAA should try to create a level playing field is impossible and is not a wise path to take.”
That, my friends, is the sound of an organization giving up. The NCAA’s got child rape covered, but that core mission stuff… man, that’s hard work.