Emmert on CBS right now (FULL INTERVIEW)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
The most amateur aspect of the NCAA is it's governance.
God forbid they share their billions with the student-athletes who generate the revenue.
Asked about Nassar case, Emmert says he won't comment during ongoing investigations.
Of course the studio head won’t put him on the spot about Penn State.
LOLOLOLOL! Some pompous loud mouthed douchebag that loves to hear himself speak learned his lesson. Legal counsel from the NCAA probably read him the riot act over all the indefensible things he said about Penn State. They probably take Pepto in advance when they know a Emmert is going to do an interview.
One of his concerns in 2012 was how flattering his Wikipedia profile may have been. It's all about having the right priorities.
so why the collusion with the NFL so kids can't leave at any time to go to the NFL? I know it is an NFL rule, but it has been put in with the NCAA's request and blessing. NBA as well.
And if you think that isn't an issue, why isn't it an issue for baseball, hockey and every other sport? The answer is that baseball started too soon so they lost control early. The other sports make a ton of money and act as a feeder system to the pro leagues. NCAA doesn't want to lose that revenue. (at the cost of the kids)
In other words, “We can’t or don’t want to try to control this crap, so we might as well allow it officially.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/369137002
This is a pretty good article on the rather absurd indefensibleness of not allowing student athletes to earn money through endorsement deals - like Olympic athletes can. It doesn’t even touch on colleges paying players. Can you imagine being a talented athlete (and an adult) and in America (the land of entrepreneurialism) and having someone tell you that you that you are not allowed to market yourself or make money off of endorsements because of some misguided fixation we as a society have on amateurism and how that supposedly makes an activity “more pure”. What utter nonsense.
This is a pretty good article on the rather absurd indefensibleness of not allowing student athletes to earn money through endorsement deals - like Olympic athletes can. It doesn’t even touch on colleges paying players. Can you imagine being a talented athlete (and an adult) and in America (the land of entrepreneurialism) and having someone tell you that you that you are not allowed to market yourself or make money off of endorsements because of some misguided fixation we as a society have on amateurism and how that supposedly makes an activity “more pure”. What utter nonsense.
In other words, “I got my ass handed to me in a sling over Penn State. I’m not doing that again.”
Have a bad feeling that college sports as we know them are about to vanish into thin air.
I think you're right, but I find myself less and less concerned about that.
And whose job has it been to fix that? Wouldn't that be NCAA leadership? Why haven't they been doing their job?
Not defending either the NCAA or the NFL, but football players need time to grow physically, and the three years in college will do that. Basketball, baseball and I would assume hockey - they know they are physically ready much earlier in life than football players.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
A football player isn’t ready at 18 or 19 to play in the NFL. It’s entirely too physical. I don’t think the NFL will ever allow “kids” that young to play because of the terrible publicity they’d get when (not if) those kids are grievously injured. Just my take on it of course.
Sounds like he's prepping the media for when he ends the basketball investigation and let's everyone off the hook due to ancient, unmanageable rules not suited for the modern age. RIP NCAA!
- Most sports don't generate revenue.
- $200k of college expenses + free clothing + free travel with 1st class accommodations + free bowl prizes + $20k of spending money + free tutoring doesn't make me feel bad for the players.
Last edited:
Uh, no. If the NFL and NBA had discussions about the pro leagues entry rules that would be collusion and all three would be royally fvcked. Clearly the NCAA is all in favor of the rules, but they ain't stupid enough to be colluding
In the cases of basketball and football, the college games gained wider-spread popularity before the pro versions. It's the other way around in baseball and hockey, so those pro sports needed to build their own feeder systems.
Yes, I can imagine and if I wanted to make money through endorsements I'd have to stop playing college football. See how easy that was!
Paying a few athletes, by the few schools that could afford to pay large sums of money would destroy college football.
1. That is correct. Those sports live on the back of football, basketball and/or are underwritten by student fees. In most endeavors, when a division or product line shows no profit over its existence and shows no hope of ever becoming profitable, it's shut down.
2. Might be nice if someone actually asked the players about what they thought of their "compensation."
If free markets are the answer, then the schools with the most billionaires will dominate the sport. Welcome back, Ivy League.
I'm old school but I think college sports should be played by college students.
Except that the Ivy League can afford to do that now and chooses not to. Stanford could easily afford to pay its coaches the highest salaries in FBS and build the most lavish facilities, but doesn't. Wonder why that is.
After paying for our children to participate in high school sports it causes me to ponder the college pay back system after the student/athlete receives the list bgdan noted above. That is a significant compensation for a college student to receive for playing a sport, albeit a demanding sport.
If the professional sports teams use the college sports system as a training camp and minor league, they should be funding it to some level and the four year scholarship contract should be a two way street. Obligating the school to maintain the funding for four years or at their option, five years with the scholastic performance of the student maintaining a level of success and progress. The student owes the school their best scholastic and athletic efforts plus a four year commitment to remain at the school to balance the four year promise of funding by the school.
There seem to be too many one sided benefit situations operating simultaneously, maintained by tradition, not reality.
If you believe that any school has an ironclad obligation to fund a scholarship for four years then you've been drinking too much of the Koolaid their PR machines are dispensing.
And anyone who underwrites their kids' high school sports endeavors in the hope of parlaying it into a college scholarship really needs to re-examine their value system as well as their financial acumen.
Well they can pay for the best coaches, but they don't even offer athletic scholarships, correct? So even the best coaches aren't going to be able to land the best athletes. However, if Jeff Bezos decided he wanted to see an incredible Princeton hoops team, he could offer endorsements with Amazon for $1M a year for all players at Princeton. Welcome back Ivy League.
Ivy League chooses not to offer athletic scholarships. They easily could. They adhere to academic standards that, in large part, insure that the qualifications of their athletes are close to the student body at large. They can eliminate those if they choose.
They do what they do for their own reasons and they do have the wherewithal to win national championships if they want to.
Here’s a news flash: College students are allowed to work and get paid...any amount of money a company wants to pay them...unless you’re a student athlete. Then it’s suddenly a problem.
Here’s another news flash for everyone saying I like college sports the way it is, etc: It’s not about you.
