Emmert Complains About Lack of Authority

[RyanSMU98]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/10/senate-committee-grills-ncaa-president-about-college-athlete-rights#sthash.IPTV6Jz4.dpbs

That assertion -- along with tough criticism that Emmert endured from numerous lawmakers during a three-hour grilling -- prompted Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, to ask, “If you’re merely a monetary pass-through, why should you even exist?”

[Stallion]

actually some good points made by the Senators. why aren't these "rule makers" the ones appearing before the Committee-lets line up the P5 conference commissioners instead of blaming the NCAA every time. If you think its the NCAA that is the problem then you are missing the point.

[ponyinNC]

Now that I would like to see. Would be the equivalent of the tobacco presidents or big banks - these P5 commishes should take a hint and learn from those that came before them -- don't take a private jet to the hearing! Take the bus!

[leopold]

Emmert is absolutely right. The NCAA is set up for nothing more than regulating what it is to put on a fair athletic competition; from determining how long the actual game lasts to who is eligible to compete; i.e. coming up with a blanket idea about what constitutes a 'student athlete.'

But the institutions themselves each have go about these ideas on their own terms - from what can go along with a scholarship - can I give the kid a simple T-shirt or help a walk-on with books - to how much financial support to put into the program, whether it's the weight room to the coaches salary to to academic support; to the academic classes the athlete has to take; i.e. Why is the kid really there? To play football or to get a traditional college education? The sexual oversight McCaskill brought up is a perfect example - it's the institutions job to monitor their students, whether an athlete or not, and frankly there have been a number of cases where athletes and coaches have been punished without a fair trial, so it's in the athletic departments best interest to hand over that power to the schools themselves.

In reality, like, 90% of the day-to-day factors that go into giving that athlete their real, true collegiate experience comes from the institutions themselves. And considering that the, what? 1100? 1200? institutions that make up the NCAA have very few true things in common outside of the actual game itself they are going to have a very hard time coming to a common consensus as to what they are there to provide the kid. The NCAA is not much more than a glorified hall-monitor in that regard, and I have found myself being genuinely sorry for Emmert on a couple of occasions and the scapegoat he has been made to be.

[Mexmustang]

Stallion, best observation you've made in years. I would add that many
Senators find it easier to target the weak that have no constituency, rather than say the
AD's from Alabama, Ohio, Florida or Texas.

[ojaipony]

It's very simple: quit all the charades and masquerading and call it what it is: a business! The P5 athletic departments are simply revenue generators for the institutions (they are profit centers) and for football and basketball particularly, they exist as farm systems for the NFL and NBA. Pay the players, don't require them to attend the school (they can use the money you pay them to pay for classes if they so choose) and be done with it. This whole "student athlete" thing is a farce and complete hogwash. If people would just stop all the [deleted], the world would be a better place.

[Stallion]

because if the student athlete model is abandoned a significant percentage of alumni will bail including me. You really support your team only because they have the words "SMU" on the front of their Red/Blue Jersey? Screw that. I'm not supporting a professional minor league

[mustangxc]

because if the student athlete model is abandoned a significant percentage of alumni will bail including me. You really support your team only because they have the words "SMU" on the front of their Red/Blue Jersey? Screw that. I'm not supporting a professional minor league

I agree. You start paying players and it becomes minor league sports. At that point I would exclusively follow the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. I have no interest whatsoever in minor league sports.

[smusportspage]

actually some good points made by the Senators. why aren't these "rule makers" the ones appearing before the Committee-lets line up the P5 conference commissioners instead of blaming the NCAA every time. If you think its the NCAA that is the problem then you are missing the point.

Yep.

[Hoop Fan]

totally agree, college athletes should not get anything beyond a basic flat stipend and health insurance. The athletes are NOT the product in college athletics. The product is rivalries and bragging rights, pure and simple. The individual players matter little. Did Bo Jackson change the face of Auburn football? No, it was the same before him and after him. Same with every star right through Johnny Football, they are incidental to the game. All Auburn fans really care about is beating Alabama, if it takes Bo Jackson or Bo Diddly to do it doesnt matter much, its all about scoreboard. Every step college athletics takes to consolidating and being more like the pros is a big mistake and totally misguided. They should be going the other way, make student athletes real students, let the CFL be the NFL's minor league for kids who don't want to go to class.

[ojaipony]

Uh, it's ALREADY a minor league sports team ... the teams/players are absolutely the product (just follow the money and it's obvious . . . TV and merchandising licensing in the hundreds of millions of dollars!) . . . has been for about 30 years or so . . . in the 1950s, sure, there were true "student athletes" but that's not been the reality for a very long time . . . I'm talking on the "big boy" level . . . see UNC bball for example (and others) and dozens of football programs (you think a star player at Alabama, aTm, etc really attends any classes?? . . . is NOT getting paid?!?). Some really naive people on here . . .

[Stallion]

No you are focusing on an elite group of athletes at the pinnacle of 2 sports. There are over 30 NCAA sports and there are male/female sports. In football you are talking about maybe 225 players a year in Division 1A. In Basketball you are talking about 30 kids or so per year. There are over 10,625 Division 1A scholarship football players every single year. There are over 5,000 Division 1A male scholarship basketball players every single year. So in each sport we are talking less than 2% or 1/50th of the rosters.

Its the NBA and NFL's failure to create their own minor leagues which you are complaining about-not a failure of the NCAA. Even these elite players at the pinnacle benefit as mentioned above from the spotlight of playing NCAA sports when otherwise they would be taking bus trips around a minor league circuit.

Johnny Manziel received a huge lifetime financial benefit from playing in a spotlite, nationally televised SEC program and school with huge alumni like A&M which he never would have received busing around the minor leagues-heck he wasn't even a Top 250 prospect when he turned opportunity into stardom. Nobody would have even seen him play minor league football as opposed to the media spotlite of a strong NCAA program. Then he went pro early. His [deleted] is with the NFL for not being able to turn pro after freshman year.

Shabbazz Napier received the same kind of benefit-he could have cashed in earlier by turning pro after his freshman year. He made a conscious voluntary decision to play through his Senior season-to help his own financial prospects to improve his NBA Draft potential. His [deleted] is with the NBA. Actually Nappier should blame himself since he obviously didn't think he was good enough to cut it in the NBA as an undergraduate

[ojaipony]

No you are focusing on an elite group of athletes at the pinnacle of 2 sports. There are over 30 NCAA sports and there are male/female sports. In football you are talking about maybe 225 players a year in Division 1A. In Basketball you are talking about 30 kids or so per year. There are over 10,625 Division 1A scholarship football players every single year. There are over 5,000 Division 1A male scholarship basketball players every single year. So in each sport we are talking less than 2% or 1/50th of the rosters.

Its the NBA and NFL's failure to create their own minor leagues which you are complaining about-not a failure of the NCAA. Even these elite players at the pinnacle benefit as mentioned above from the spotlight of playing NCAA sports when otherwise they would be taking bus trips around a minor league circuit.

Johnny Manziel received a huge lifetime financial benefit from playing in a spotlite, nationally televised SEC program and school with huge alumni like A&M which he never would have received busing around the minor leagues-heck he wasn't even a Top 250 prospect when he turned opportunity into stardom. Nobody would have even seen him play minor league football as opposed to the media spotlite of a strong NCAA program. Then he went pro early. His [deleted] is with the NFL for not being able to turn pro after freshman year.

Shabbazz Napier received the same kind of benefit-he could have cashed in earlier by turning pro after his freshman year. He made a conscious voluntary decision to play through his Senior season-to help his own financial prospects to improve his NBA Draft potential. His [deleted] is with the NBA. Actually Nappier should blame himself since he obviously didn't think he was good enough to cut it in the NBA as an undergraduate

All great points. I painted with a pretty broad brush stroke there. Just all seems like big business to me.

[leopold]

Uh, it's ALREADY a minor league sports team ... the teams/players are absolutely the product (just follow the money and it's obvious . . . TV and merchandising licensing in the hundreds of millions of dollars!) . . . has been for about 30 years or so . . . in the 1950s, sure, there were true "student athletes" but that's not been the reality for a very long time . . . I'm talking on the "big boy" level . . . see UNC bball for example (and others) and dozens of football programs (you think a star player at Alabama, aTm, etc really attends any classes?? . . . is NOT getting paid?!?). Some really naive people on here . . .

I'm sorry but how many successful companies do you see asking openly for donations? The single biggest issue I have with the idea of NCAA sports, even football, being a 'business' is the idea that all programs openly, absolutely, and completely rely upon boosters and donations to compete. From the T.Boone Pickins Sugardaddy Model at OSU to IPTAY at Clemson schools are unapologetic about relying on donations to stay competitive, stay ahead, stay afloat. And that would also Include the schools themselves, which in many cases are still funding programs that lose money - including ours, which, no matter how you cut it, does NOT break even. In fact, if they ever did turn it into an open business people like Stallion may not have to walk away or choose not to support it because I have SERIOUS questions as to whether or not SMU could even field a professional team to begin with.

Curious question: I know for-profit companies own companies that aren't necessarily for-profit (I believe major league sports franchises are a tax haven for certain corporations and individuals) but are there instances where not-for-profits own a for-profit, because I would imagine that would be what an academic institution running a professional franchise would constitute (obviously I know NOTHING about tax law).

Regardless, take away the booster - not to mention other factors like walk-ons - and change tax and insurance laws and you will have a completely different product.

[Stallion]

Pretty complicated area of the law but a 501c3 non-profit can operate a business but it would lose its exemption if it wasn't operated "primarily for its educational purpose." Assuming the players aren't students but professional mercenaries- has that line been crossed? Its a good question that I think the schools have to be extremely worried about. Obviously, if the players are student athletes then a 501c3 school is going to pass muster as a primarily educational purpose. In my mind-in a case that would be of first impression-if the student athlete model was dropped and schools used paid mercenaries then the IRS would likely take the position that there is no "primarily educational purpose" to college athletics and the IRS would withdraw the schools exemption. Of course, this means alumni wouldn't get a tax deduction for donations to the athletic department. That would be funny as hell-as alumni donations is what college athletics is built on. Despite the calls by NCAA critics to get rid of the student/athlete model its my opinion that WILL NEVER happen because it jeopardizes the NCAA schools 501c3 tax exemption. I believe those critics are pretty far off base