Emmert was educated at the University of Washington, and received his Ph. D. from the University of Syracuse. He is also extremely experienced in not only the running of Universities, but also dealing with big time University athletics. Emmert served as the chancellor of Louisiana State University and is credited with being instrumental in bringing Nick Saban to LSU. Emmert was also the President of his alma mater the University of Washington Huskies, spearheading the hiring of coach Steve Sarkisian.
During Emmert's tenure at the University of Washingtion he brought in over 1 billion dollars in grant and contract research in 2007. This was the first time a figure that large had ever even been approached by the University of Washington. At LSU he remarked that "athletics are integral o the success of a university." Emmert has spent a career creating cash flow for universities and athletic programs. You can not argue that LSU and Washington are not better off financially than they were before Emmert arrived. Emmert is a man of convictions , ideas, and loyalty; he has a vision for what college athletics should be and how athletics should help universities. Emmert is changing the NCAA to fit that vision stating:
As colleges and universities struggle with an array of budgetary and financial challenges, the first step is to ensure that people inside and outside the institutions understand the value of athletics as part of the educational experience. I know I sound like a broken record on that, but if athletics is seen as an independent, semi-autonomous, unrelated activity on a university campus, then its value is greatly diminished. If on the contrary – and in reality – it is seen as integral to and a part of the education and culture of an academic enterprise, then its value goes up. So when a college decides to direct X amount of resources to intercollegiate athletics, then it’s not seen as diversionary from the academic enterprise but a piece of it. That’s the first role the NCAA can articulate
Emmert wants universities to value the athletic programs of their institution. He believes that many universities don't realize what they are missing by putting athletics on the back burner. Emmert says the first role of the NCAA is to express this fact to universities. This is a major shift in the way the NCAA has been operating. The NCAA up to this point was focused on enforcing the rules of college amateur athletics. The NCAA was also responsible as a governing body for trying to make college athletics run as smoothly as possible. The NCAA did promote college athletics, but it was never the primary mission of the NCAA.
Emmert wants to do things in a new and progressive way. Emmert wants the NCAA to function less like the governing body of the NFL or MLB and more like the United Nations. He wants the NCAA to promote the joint good of all the universities and working together. If Emmert's new NCAA has to come come down on member schools it will, but it will do so in symbolic and impotent ways, so as not to actually hurt any one school.
Before Emmert took office in 2010 we saw a number of penalties handed down by the NCAA. USC was leveled with heavy sanctions from the Reggie Bush case. North Carolina had multiple players and coaches suspended and dismissed due to dealings with agents. Marcel Dareus of Alabama was suspended for two games for attending a party paid for by an agent. Star University of Georgia receiver A.J. Green was suspended for 4 games for selling a jersey online.
After Emmert took office in November we have had several more NCCA infractions. Cam Newton was ruled ineligible for one day because his father was shopping him to Mississippi State. Five Ohio State players who sold football memorabilia were suspended from the first five games of the 2011 season, yet allowed to play in their bowl game. The University of Connecticut was hit with laughably minor sanctions for the multitude of infractions their basketball program committed.
The difference between consequences of NCAA infractions before and after Emmert could not be more stark. Emmert recently said:
The priorities are student-athlete well-being and protection of the collegiate model that we all know and feel viscerally about.
The priority is the university and the athlete, not the competition. The unfortunate thing about Emmert's approach is that it has been tried before, and failed. Not to make this a political argument, but few from either side of the political spectrum will argue that U.N. is effective. The U.N. is a very accurate analogy for Emmert's new NCAA. Strong words and worthless sanctions have done nothing to change some of the world's worst transgressors. Have human rights improved in North Korea or Iran because of some symbolic sanctions? Serious actions and consequences for inhumane behavior would be the only thing that would change these countries. We are not saying that we should take action against them, we are only pointing out how ineffective these minor slaps on the wrist are. This same example is valid for the NCAA, do you really think that the penalties leveled against Ohio State will create an atmosphere of compliance? The answer to that question has already been discovered.
Jim Tressel knew about the Ohio State five a year ago. He did not report this to the NCAA, he didn't even tell this to the NCAA when they were investigated in December. Now, he says he will serve the same punishment as his players. Even though he is a head coach who should know better. Do we really think the NCAA will come in and make his suspensions more severe? Tressel knows that Ohio State basically got away with breaking the rules once, so why not go for broke now?
We know that Emmert believes that not harming the Universities in the NCAA any way is important but what other motivation for this change is there? Emmert said about the Cam Newton ruling:
"I was not surprised by the volume or the vitriolic nature, but had we made a different decision, I do think it would have been worse."
Public relations and perception plays a part in enforcement now. Emmert wants the NCAA to be shown in a positive light, he wants it to be perceived as a force of change and success. It appears it will now be acceptable to let circumstances and public opinion change the outcome of deliberations on punishment.
Emmert has stated that he is the head of a legislative body made up of the University Presidents, he is not above them but simply the first among equals. This is a dramatic shift in the dynamic between universities and the NCAA. If a University President has an equal say to the President of the NCAA then why would a University President ever allow any real punishment to come to their University?
The vision of Emmert's NCAA is very different from the NCAA we have always known. It will change college athletics forever. If that change be positive or will it be negative will depend on your point of view. If you are looking at college sports as an arm of the University whose mission is to bring in revenue for the University, then you will probably see these changes as positive. If you see college athletics as an arm of the University whose mission is to teach about fair play, hard work, and honest competition, then you will probably not be happy with the changes Emmert is pushing.
This series will continues with Mike Slive's Brave New World. (coming soon)
Tweet
0 comments:
Post a Comment
If you are going to be racist, sexist, or blatantly idiotic I will probably delete your comment.