Mark Emmert insists he’s relevant. Does anyone agree?

Sound the trumpets.

NCAA president Mark Emmert agrees with major-college football commissioners demanding substantial change in the Indianapolis-based association and has called a summit of Division I schools in January…

… Within the past week, Emmert sent a letter to all D-I presidents, athletic directors, commissioners, faculty athletic representatatives and senior woman administrators asking them to save the dates of Jan. 16 and 17 for “an important milestone in which your participation is crucial.” The meeting will be held at the same time as the NCAA’s annual convention in San Diego.In the letter, Emmert called the “first-time Division I Governance Dialogue” a “critical meeting” that will cover “virtually every aspect of how Division I operates.”

Such drama!  One little problem, though.

However obvious the public disapproval of Emmert is from college leaders, there’s even less faith in him privately. The prevailing thought is that the NCAA isn’t healthy and is not in a better position than when Emmert took over. Some have the feeling that significant conversation about new governance won’t happen until he’s removed. Others are pessimistic that the presidents ultimately in charge of Emmert’s fate are willing to make such a drastic move…

… There’s a notion that if Emmert survives the next three months or so, he could embrace the inevitable change, attach himself to it and potentially overhaul his current image of being inept and ineffective. But there’s a lot of skepticism, as he’s buried himself too deep and failed to show leadership on seemingly obvious issues the NCAA could legitimately impact, such as concussions.

Emmert was hired as a change agent, and it’s ironic that as the NCAA sits on the precipice of major change it could be done despite him or without him and not because of him.

Sounds like it’s gonna be a fun meeting.

Although I do have one question, based on this:

None of the changes being discussed, Emmert said, would affect the NCAA basketball tournament.

“Everybody’s very satisfied with where the tournament is right now,” Emmert said. “It’s something that’s performing very well for all of our universities and our students, and it’s obviously very popular in the country. … That’s one of the things everybody wants to presevere.”

One structural change being discussed is a subdivision within Division I of the power football conferences. Delany said he can see a situation where schools would compete in the same NCAA championship, such as the Division I men’s basketball tournament, “but provide a different package of benefits (for athletes) based on high resource vs. middle resource.”

Are these guys seriously suggesting a basketball tourney where some teams have paid players and some don’t?  Good Lord, that’s a tricky proposition.


Filed under The NCAA

11 responses to “Mark Emmert insists he’s relevant. Does anyone agree?

  1. Cojones

    And my poor reading comprehension didn’t pick up on the last part until you mentioned it. Since that won’t happen before the next tourney (it will only get discussed), Emmert is placing the bad and shit-covered Gordian knot discussion apace with his possible exit which he prolongs by waiting until Jan to get an open conference discussion.



  2. Lrgk9

    At this point Emmert is gum on the bottom of everybody’s shoe; except outside NCAA counsel of course.


  3. 81Dog

    I find it difficult to understand how any plan/scheme that proposes to pay football players is going to deal with the issue of Title IX equivalency. You can bet that whatever is proposed to be handed out to the boys, there’s going to be a demand that a similar allotment be handed out to the girls. I am no Title IX expert, but I thnk it’s going to be a problem.


    • Monday Night Frotteur

      1) The easiest workaround is to simply allow athletes to receive unlimited “outside” money. The schools aren’t paying it directly so Title IX isn’t involved.

      2) Title IX is a little more complex, and future jurisprudence is uncertain. It could be interpreted to allow different levels of funding.

      3) Jim Delany suggested the other day that if the Universities lose the O’Bannon suit, they will go to Congress and try to get Title IX either scaled back or eliminated.

      4) Barring all that, the schools could just have to pay females out of general funds. Nothing requires male revenue athletes to shoulder that burden entirely.


  4. Dog in Fla

    Whenever I read about The Runaway Emmert, I hear Liam Neeson’s voice in my head:

    “I don’t know why you’re running away. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for management and leadership, I can tell you I don’t have any. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career of giving good interview. Skills that make me a nightmare to all D-I presidents, athletic directors, commissioners, faculty athletic representatatives and senior woman administrators. If you come to San Diego when we get together again for the “first-time Division I Governance Dialogue,” a “critical meeting,” delivered by me to you in the form of a monologue by me, that’ll be the end of it and I will give you the secret code to virtually every aspect of when class action certification goes bad, how Division I operates and a carrot. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will have Donald Remy and Donna Shalala hug you.”


  5. Bryant Denny



    • Trbodawg

      I’m not entirely sure why, but BD’s avatar always looks like it’s smirking to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…


  6. Mayor of Dawgtown

    If the presidents of NCAA member institutions are smart they will get rid of Emmert and hire a new NCAA President ASAP to hold the discussions Emmert has scheduled for January, 2014. They may have to delay the meeting but that would be better than letting Emmert screw things up and have the best 60 football programs leave. Personally I am hoping for the latter.


  7. Here is what the NCAA does. Go ahead and try and tell me this kid did not suffer unnecessarily at the hands of an inept organization: