Digging into the past of NCAA President Mark Emmert
- Thread starter troy
- Start date
troy
Well-Known Member
O
OO44
Guest
Donna Shalala is after his butt now. I hope she gets it.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Shalala part of the committee that outlined the PSU punishments, along with the President of U$C?
Talk about "conflict" and "self-serving". This guy makes me long for the days of Myles Brand, may he rest in peace.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Shalala is primarily concerned about her own arse.
Re the Emmert article, the UConn history is troubling, especially since he appears to have lied to a reporter when asked. The other stuff, not so much. I prefer to look at the body of work and LSU unquestionably improved their academic support and performance on his watch (not saying it’s Harvard…). And you’ll note the UW comments were brief, because there’s nothing there. He did a nice job, and every campus has faculty complaining about spending even one dime on sports. Also, I don’t remember anyone here in Seattle being ticked Emmert had said UW would be his “last stop” – people understood the NCAA gig was a different animal.
However, he makes another false statement: “the president of the NCAA doesn't get involved in infractions cases.” Oh really? Anyone recall how Penn State was handled? Emmert called the president personally, laid out the punishment, and demanded he accept right then and there or they’d go public and “the death penalty would be on the table.” The trustees were never consulted or briefed, in fact hadn’t even reviewed the (highly unprofessional) Freeh report at that stage. We all agree PSU deserved punishment, but the way it was handled was a travesty of its own. Both Freeh and Emmert knew that any kind of pushback from PSU or their alums would be viewed as “denial” or backing a child molester, and they were right.
I have generally been a fan, he is *way* more talented than Myles Brand, but am not as optimistic about Emmert's ability or desire to reform the NCAA as I was a year ago.
Re the Emmert article, the UConn history is troubling, especially since he appears to have lied to a reporter when asked. The other stuff, not so much. I prefer to look at the body of work and LSU unquestionably improved their academic support and performance on his watch (not saying it’s Harvard…). And you’ll note the UW comments were brief, because there’s nothing there. He did a nice job, and every campus has faculty complaining about spending even one dime on sports. Also, I don’t remember anyone here in Seattle being ticked Emmert had said UW would be his “last stop” – people understood the NCAA gig was a different animal.
However, he makes another false statement: “the president of the NCAA doesn't get involved in infractions cases.” Oh really? Anyone recall how Penn State was handled? Emmert called the president personally, laid out the punishment, and demanded he accept right then and there or they’d go public and “the death penalty would be on the table.” The trustees were never consulted or briefed, in fact hadn’t even reviewed the (highly unprofessional) Freeh report at that stage. We all agree PSU deserved punishment, but the way it was handled was a travesty of its own. Both Freeh and Emmert knew that any kind of pushback from PSU or their alums would be viewed as “denial” or backing a child molester, and they were right.
I have generally been a fan, he is *way* more talented than Myles Brand, but am not as optimistic about Emmert's ability or desire to reform the NCAA as I was a year ago.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
It's not hard to "improve" academic performance when you have grades being changed. It wasn't proven, but I don't doubt for a second that it was a systemic issue, not just a small handful of players in isolated incidents. So I don't think we can point to the overall academic improvement at LSU and say it was because he did a good job. The whole issue at LSU was a cheating scandal in which, according to at least the faculty member from the article, there was a widespread issue.
Emmert is every bit as slimy as the schools he gives a slap on the wrist.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
I rember when Emmert was saying early on in his term that he wanted punishments to change the whole risk calculus that schools take when the flaunt the rules. He wanted punishments to hurt. I got it the back of my mind that he made some schools squirm and made some enemies. Unfortunately he seems to have left enough amo laying around to nullify his best intentions.
