Friends, if there’s one thing you can count on in this crazy, mixed up world, it’s knowing that any story about previously unreleased NCAA commentary is bound to be entertaining in the “damn, son, I don’t think I would’a said that” sense. And Jon Solomon’s piece about some letters and e-mails about the one-year scholarship rule that is currently the subject of (another) antitrust suit doesn’t disappoint.
“The one-year rule also preserves the NCAA’s brand of intercollegiate athletics by preventing ‘employment contract’ like negotiations, bidding wars and other tactics between and among schools and students,” NCAA attorney Greg Curtner wrote to the DOJ, according to Rascher. Curtner also wrote, “Given the short-term gains — in terms of athletic success, institutional and individual prestige, and commercial rewards — that schools and individuals can realize by deviating from the long-term norms of amateur intercollegiate athletics … this sort of ‘cheating’ would likely make it impossible to sustain the NCAA brand of intercollegiate athletics …”
The NCAA said in a statement Tuesday that last sentence was taken out of context…
Shit, the NCAA would like to argue that every moronic utterance ever made on its behalf has been taken out of context. (No wonder Stacey Osburn prefers being closed mouthed.)
But today’s winner is Texas women’s athletic director Chris Plonsky, who possesses the icy soul of Montgomery Burns and, combined with Steve Patterson, gives the University of Texas the greatest one-two douchebag punch in college athletics. Evidently Plonsky has never met a student-athlete who wasn’t a lazy, good for nothing bum.
… Plonsky wrote an email saying guaranteeing scholarships beyond one year would “result in MORE complacency” among college athletes who “then go on a form of cruise control.”
Plonsky said the promise of multiyear scholarships “with little ability to hold feet to fire is not the way the world works. If you don’t do your job, you get warned. If you continue to fail, you get fired. If you fail to reach benchmarks, you cannot simply say, ‘you still pay me.’”
Um… I thought the whole point was you weren’t paying them. Besides, it seemed to work for Mack Brown for a number of years.
What amazes me – somewhat, anyway – is that at this point the organization has to realize it hosts a treasure trove of stupidity and embarrassment, things that it cannot hope to hide in litigation, and yet it keeps fighting lawsuits to the death instead of trying to keep the dumb under wraps by settling.
What’s that definition of insanity again?