Having it both ways

Ah, the noble Mark Emmert speaks.

USA TODAY SPORTS: Is it a healthy discussion, regardless of the cases and then what people are seeking and disputing, is it a healthy discussion?

EMMERT: Having this debate and discussion via lawsuits is, of course, challenging in many ways. It means it’s hard to have a conversation, even you and I, because we have all of these lawsuits over here. But I think it is healthy for society, for the country, to stop and say, ‘What do we want college sports to be? Do we want this to be about students who are playing games they love, some tiny portion of whom are going to play professionally but the vast majority percent of whom are not? Or do we want them to be professional athletes who are playing as employees of the university? Which of those two models do we want as a country? I obviously have a strong view on it. And we believe that most people feel the same and in virtually every case the courts have agreed with our view that this is about student-athletes playing other student-athletes, not employees playing employees. But it’s perfectly appropriate and understandable that the world wants to have that debate and discussion.

That’s mighty generous of him.  Allow Jay Bilas to retort.

You know, it’s a lot easier to get pissed off about the hypocrisy when I leave Kirby Smart out of the discussion.

*************************************************************************

UPDATE:  As David Wunderlich observes, once you go down Emmert’s road that these are students playing a game they love, as opposed to contract employees – and David reminds us that the NCAA doesn’t recognize the scholarship as a binding contract – it’s pretty hard to come up with a defense of transfer restrictions.

13 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

13 responses to “Having it both ways

  1. lakedawg

    Regardless of any recent cases on this subject, I just have to take the kids side on this with some very few restrictions.

    Like

  2. Emmert is such a hypocrite. The “romantic” wants it to be about kids “playing games they love.” The “realist” sees this for what it is … a “tiny portion” who know they are being undercompensated while the “vast majority” are getting a fair deal (free college education). I was a romantic until Todd Gurley ended up on the wrong end of the deal with that cretin from Rome. I quickly became a realist as I watched the NCAA in its “holier than thou” way tell us we should be thankful it was only 4 games as they turned a blind eye to $Cam, Johnny Cash, and Famous Jameis.

    Burn it down, Jeffrey Kessler, burn it down.

    Like

  3. First no one can say that any given student can’t transfer to any other school. Only that they have to wait a year before playing. I think to not have it that way especially in this day and time would have the potential to lead to all kinds of negative possibilities. The same as if there were zero rules in recruiting or the number of scholarships a school could offer.

    Like

    • MDDawg

      Is there a limit to how many scholarships a school can offer? They can always offer more than they actually have room for, then rescind some offers when they run out of space.

      Like

    • Only that they have to wait a year before playing. I think to not have it that way especially in this day and time would have the potential to lead to all kinds of negative possibilities.

      Seeing as they wouldn’t be on scholarship for that period, either, I think you’re understating the situation.

      Like

      • They would be just like every other student and have to pay they’re own way.

        Like

        • In Georgia, if you transfer from one state school to another, do you lose the Hope Scholarship?

          Like

          • No. The student athletes from Georgia that went to a school in Georgia would not lose the Hope Scholarship either.
            Similarly any Georgia resident students that transfer out of state would loose the Hope Scholarship whether they are an athlete or not.

            Like

            • Exactly my point. Why is it fair to treat the athletic scholarship differently, especially when you insist that student-athletes aren’t employees?

              Like

              • Because the athletic scholarship is an agreement between and individual and a specific institution. Whereas the Hope Scholarship is an agreement between the State and a specific individual.

                Like

                • So what? Why should that stop the school to which the student-athlete is transferring from offering a scholarship from the moment the kid steps on campus?

                  By the way, care to point out where the athletic scholarship says that?

                  Like