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.