• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

NCAA President Says Conference Reshuffling ‘Embarrassed’ Many in College Sports

September 26, 2011, 3:45 pm

Grapevine, Tex.—NCAA President Mark Emmert delivered a stern lecture Monday afternoon to athletic directors from the country’s biggest college sports programs, taking them to task for the tumult of recent conference realignment and urging them to take part in the association’s current efforts to overhaul some of its policies.

“People today have greater doubt, greater concern about what we stand for and why we do what we do,” Emmert said to a packed room of athletic directors and faculty athletics representatives, who have all gathered here for their annual meetings. “And that is a huge problem for us.”

“The specter of the past couple weeks of conference realignment has not been a healthy thing,” said Emmert, speaking forcefully and without notes. The prevailing belief among the public and the press, he said, is that college sports stands only for money. But he scolded the ADs for allowing talk and speculation around realignment to center solely on financial matters.

“The world’s convinced that’s all we care about…that all this is about money,” he said. “I didn’t read many of us stepping up and saying that this will work really well for student-athletes because we’ll do X, we’ll do Y, it will create more resources, it will help us stabilize our programs.”

“It was all about the deal,” he said.

After outlining for the athletic directors some of the major policy changes the Division I Board of Directors is likely to consider at its meeting next month, Emmert said he believed it was a perfect time to make change.

“The confusion and disruption of the conference realignment adds to, doesn’t detract from, our ability to get these things done,” he said. “Because, candidly, I think we were all embarrassed by some of that behavior, and here’s our chance to show what we really care about.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • lairdwilcox

    This is the kind of thing that causes ordinary people to regard animal lovers as nutty and unbalanced.  I can see new crimes created, draconian penalties established, fanatics demanding strict enforcement and and whole new class of animal-chasing legal parasites.  We don’t need this and the animals don’t either.  Go bother someone else with these wierd obsessions. 

  • jandersen

    NCAA…is about money.  If it was not about money, then why contract the millions for TV rights? 
    When will they (NCAA) acknowledge that they do allow athletes to be “paid”.  Scholarships, food, lodging, travel allowances….

  • jring61

    Of course, it’s all about the money.  What Emmert seems to be saying is that the ADs did not do enough to spin it otherwise.  

  • mgrandillo

    Well done!

  • cwinton

    The only embarrassment for Mr. Emmert is that that the hypocrisy that now characterizes big money collegiate sports programs was pretty much revealed even to the untutored by the self-evident greed motivating conference realignments this time around. 

  • commentarius

    The precedent has been set now.  Whenever a school is unhappy with its current alignment or feels that its demands aren’t being met, they will threaten to move to another conference.  Conference cohesion is gone now that several schools have made moves and profited by them.  It’ll be every school for itself, and the shuffling that seemed so jarring last summer and this will become an annual ritual.  Meanwhile the NCAA stands aside and wrings its hands desperate to spin the story away from money and greed.  But fans that fill the seats and networks that pay the billions don’t care about hypocrisy.  The show has to go on.

  • 22260556

    Unbelievable! NCAA lives or dies by TV [BIG MONEY] contracts. Does Emmert think we are all idiots?

  • jwgilley

    15 years ago a football coach’s compensation was about twice what a full professor of business, engineering etc was. Now it is 20 to 30 times.  Sounds like Wall Street to me…greedy get greedier.

  • willynilly

    It should embarrass them.  It sends the wrong message.  The public can easily conclude that the chief purpose of the institution is to seek and secure overwhelming amounts of money for itself; rather than seeking competent students and educating them well as a means of bringing wealth to the entire nation.

  • ontario

    Its about money, but as I read the Chronicle I also think the NCAA is about power.  How these coaches treat these students.  I can’t believe that someone in upper administration does not know about it and fire these coaches. 

  • parsleylover

    I think Emmert needs to convey to his AD’s what it IS all about if indeed it is not about money..  Your article didn’t really tell us, and I am surely at a loss to know what big college sports is about other than money.  One needs to to look no further than the ongoing scandals surrounding player recruitments and player academic performance to wonder what the heck big time college sports contributing to higher education.

  • Tarkio

    Long live the NAIA. 

  • 11179102

    What’s truly embarrassing is how irrelevant the NCAA is in the realignment discussions.

  • dank48

    “The prevailing belief among the public and the press, he said, is that college sports stands only for money.”

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

  • krn1951

    After the men’s football coach, men’s basketball coach and President aren’t star athletes the highest paid employees at BCS schools?

  • LeeNickles

    Interesting related piece at the Atlantic about the NCAA & the option to pay the players above the table:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/

  • digger1

    The NCAA should check to see how much money is loaded on the backs of students in the form of fees.  It is amazing to go to so many different Universities that are spending like crazy in the name of recruiting.  Each sport has its own training facilities, individual sports medicine facility, trainers and the list goes on.  Coaches making one to five million, assistants making 250,000 or more.  90% of them losing money while keeping up with the the guys down the street.  The eleventh commandment “thou shall not tempt” is the rule when recruiting at all levels. 
    Programs are crashing and unqualified students continuously are taken advantage of in the name of winning!  Athletes spend eight or more hours a day lifting weights, learning plays, “unsupervised but required practices year round” yet so many can not speak a coherent sentence.   Coaches create huge havoc, walk away and make more money at the next wannabe.  Shame on all the Presidents, Chancellors and Boards of Trustees who stand by while athletic programs distance themselves from the University and arrogantly snub their noses at the hard working staff and faculty who stand by and watch.

  • civilprof

    Of course this is about money!  The discontent started in Austin and spread like wildfire.  

  • interaffairs1234

    Remember that the Presidents of these institutions are ultimately the ones driving the realignment and chasing the MONEY.  They like to pretend that the AD’s are the responsible parties but the vote is always done by the Presidents.  Until a President is publicly embarassed by the behavior of athletics they stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is wonderful. 

  • ichrysso

    I think most of the comments on this board prove to Mr. Emmert that the thinly veiled attempt to fool the public is more insulting than the truth - admitting that “college” sports is different from 20 years ago and today, this is just a play for money.  If it wasn’t, how come he was not specific as to the “valid” reasons for each of the realignment scenarios?  “College” sports (and especially football) have nothing to do with their historic academic and school affiliations.  The marketing machine only cares about fans wearing a specific set of colors and those people buying tickets, attire and hotdogs.

  • dank48

    There are all kinds of costs incurred in “collegiate” athletics. Some of the costs are financial. Some are human. 

  • dank48

    And the never-ending river of television money. Imho there is absolutely nothing in the world that television can’t ruin.

  • ridpath696

    Most athletic directors are merely caretakers without any real power–not all but most. Emmert is just bloviating to an audience that has no real power. This is being driven by powerful boosters, presidents, and trustees. Why isn’t Emmert scolding them?

  • bonobo

    I’m probably in the minority on this, but I think the problem with college football and basketball isn’t really a result of what colleges have done, but what professional sports have not done. There are four team sports that are usually considered ‘major’ professional sports in the US – football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. Two are huge revenue sports at the college level, and two are only marginally more popular than traditionally non-revenue sports. What is so different about hockey and baseball? Players are drafted out of high school and have the option of playing in an extensive professional minor league system where their skills are developed. Only those who prefer to go to college and be scholar-athletes actually compete at the college level, although many of these are elite athletes who do go on to successful careers in professional sports. In football and basketball, there are no real minor leagues, and any player who wants to develop as a pro prospect is expected to play college sports. This lack of a professional minor-league has turned these two college sports into semi-professional leagues, with numerous conflicts of interest. I don’t know how to encourage the NBA and the NFL to take responsibility for player development, and I don’t know why the market hasn’t created such systems on its own. But if they existed, NCAA football and basketball would be more like NCAA baseball and hockey, and as a fan of three of those four, I’d be fine with that.

  • josephmr

    I think you’re probably right – we can expect to see teams switching conferences as abruptly and in greater numbers, much like coaches now leave their current teams for bigger or more prestigious “programs” much more frequently, ala Brian Kelly. (Although obviously teams won’t be able to switch conferences mid-season, or right before a bowl game.)

    I was wondering though, if I’m naive for thinking that the Big 10 will remain relatively stable? Even with Big 10 teams’ tendency to lose bowl games in recent years, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to leave the conference. It seems to me that no one’s going to be looking to flee the SEC either, what with the sporting press telling us repeatedly and breathlessly that the SEC is the toughest conference in college football.

    Thoughts?

  • kurtosis

    Big 10 stable?  Let’s see, they brought in Nebraska because the conference has “high academic+research standards” and implies membership in the CIC (instead of letting CIC manage itself).  Nebraska promptly gets booted from the AAU after more than a decade of warnings that were unheeded.  Realignment makes Notre Dame look more alone… but the Big 10′s offer to ND was previously spurned.

    Tthe Big 10 will be stable for its long-time core members; but, a reckoning is coming.  The academics are getting tired of having the tail wag the dog.  I suspect we’ll see either (1) Nebraska go and Notre Dame ignored until they get into the AAU; or (2) complete separation of the CIC and the Big 10 with the Big 10 then having funding cut (“because CIC will need to manage themselves, ya know… no punitive in any way”).

  • andyj

    Is this guy out of touch or what? Of course it’s about money. He took this job not understanding that? Either he is a hypocrite or he is totally guileless.

  • goxewu

    Tiny question: Are ADs the ones who, unilaterally, make decisions for the school to leave one conference and join another?  If so, why bother having a President or a Board of Trustees?

    Another, tinier question: Did the faculty athletic representatives get to sit inside the meeting room while the meeting went on, or did they have to stand out in the hall and promise not to try to eavesdrop?

    It’s a cliché to use this cliché, but it’s all too apt: Mr. Emmert was, shocked, *shocked,* to find that big-time college athletic programs care mainly about money.

  • danieledoyle

    I am an American who completed his doctorate in Europe and lived in such places as Rome, Paris, Vienna and several places in Germany. I have taught at Villanova Unviersity since 1994 and love the Wildcats’ basketball team and their intelligent coach, but I have taught many scholar athletes over the years and I am convinced that varsity sports programs are a huge drain on college’s limited finanical resources and a distraction from the central mission of a university to promote knowledge and critical thinking however much they foster alumni support and loyalty. Student athletes are not left with sufficient to read, study and reflect. yes. I’m afraid it is all about the money!

  • disembedded

    Absolutely right!!

  • jeld56

    Three cheers for all of the above posts – you are “right on the money.”  Mark Emmert, previously Pres. of UW and the highest/one of the highest-paid university presidents in the USA, presided over football and basketball betting scandal at UW, then took another step up the big-time salary and power ladder, berating the ADs?  Hypocrisy, thy name is Emmert.

  • StephenM123

    Those Bantus aren’t pastoralists, not in tropical forest.Their lifestyle won’t be that different, especially when it comes to disease loads.

  • jefischman

    I should have said “agriculturalist” in my comment; they historically practice slash-and-burn agriculture, according to the authors of the PLoS paper, and by this citation: Philipson D (1975) The Chronology of the Iron Age in Bantu Africa. The Journal of African History 16: 321–342.