Emmert says public losing confidence in NCAA

April 1 isn't for another 153 days.....is this real?   I'm stunned.

This is possibly the dumbest interview ever...he said this stuff with as straight face. Amazing.

Sadly I think at one time the NCAA was started with good intentions to be the almost union of college students who also played a sport. 

Since its inception it has turned into a joke, much like the Prop-65 warning in California.  Yes, I absolutely want to know if the chemical I'm using contains an ingredient that is known to cause birth defects and or cancer...sadly when it's on every building and nearly every shelf it kind of looses it's shock factor and is now just a joke and a pain in everyone's behind.

Agree with Old School....hard to get thru more than 2 paragraphs at a time without laughing.  He thinks people are upset with the basketball issue?   Heck, at least the people involved got caught and something can be done.......the situation with North Carolina is a total joke and if people are upset with the NCAA it's the fact that it was basically an open and shut case, yet they won't (or have no power to) do anything about it.  The NCAA needs a complete and total reorganization....from the people to the powers that it has to police its own members and the penalties they can impose.  As it is, they run tournaments....and make a bunch of archaic rules....but other than that, it's not good for much

I don't know a single parent of a former college athlete (and I know over a hundred) who look back with fondness for the NCAA itself. 

When I see “NCAA” I think of extortionists like the Mafia. Everyone is making money but the talent putting those spending the money in the stands. 

CaCO3Girl posted:

Sadly I think at one time the NCAA was started with good intentions to be the almost union of college students who also played a sport. 

Since its inception it has turned into a joke, much like the Prop-65 warning in California.  Yes, I absolutely want to know if the chemical I'm using contains an ingredient that is known to cause birth defects and or cancer...sadly when it's on every building and nearly every shelf it kind of looses it's shock factor and is now just a joke and a pain in everyone's behind.

CaCO3Girl - If you have a few minutes check out this article that describes how the NCAA was formed and why. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...llege-sports/308643/

 Specifically the passages:   "Founding Myths", the "Big Bluff" and "We eat what we kill".   If you find any good intentions there, let me know.   

RJM posted:

When I see “NCAA” I think of extortionists like the Mafia. Everyone is making money but the talent putting those spending the money in the stands. 

While I would like to fully agree and given the option of doing the wrong thing I have no doubt they would choose it but....our government and

title IX say it will never happen 

fenwaysouth posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Sadly I think at one time the NCAA was started with good intentions to be the almost union of college students who also played a sport. 

Since its inception it has turned into a joke, much like the Prop-65 warning in California.  Yes, I absolutely want to know if the chemical I'm using contains an ingredient that is known to cause birth defects and or cancer...sadly when it's on every building and nearly every shelf it kind of looses it's shock factor and is now just a joke and a pain in everyone's behind.

CaCO3Girl - If you have a few minutes check out this article that describes how the NCAA was formed and why. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...llege-sports/308643/

 Specifically the passages:   "Founding Myths", the "Big Bluff" and "We eat what we kill".   If you find any good intentions there, let me know.   

Thanks for the link fenway.  I also found this passage particularly interesting....

"Today, much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to conjure the nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over athletic endeavor. But the origins of the “student-athlete” lie not in a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA in its “fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.”

Yep.  The phrase "student-athlete" was a phrase coined for a courtroom defense for a workmans compensation claim by a young Colorado University football player who died in the 1950s playing football.   The NCAA is a not an organization that is there to help its member institutions athletes.  Historically, it has been a combination monopoly business and law firm.   

So, why all the sudden has Emmert found his conscience or coming to grips with reality?  I don't get it.   

fenwaysouth posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Sadly I think at one time the NCAA was started with good intentions to be the almost union of college students who also played a sport. 

Since its inception it has turned into a joke, much like the Prop-65 warning in California.  Yes, I absolutely want to know if the chemical I'm using contains an ingredient that is known to cause birth defects and or cancer...sadly when it's on every building and nearly every shelf it kind of looses it's shock factor and is now just a joke and a pain in everyone's behind.

CaCO3Girl - If you have a few minutes check out this article that describes how the NCAA was formed and why. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...llege-sports/308643/

 Specifically the passages:   "Founding Myths", the "Big Bluff" and "We eat what we kill".   If you find any good intentions there, let me know.   

Try this article

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...ility_b_3020985.html

In the fourth paragraph down click on "new york times article", it takes you to the archives of the NYT to a 1909 article that is an interesting read and really was a who's who of colleges that are still the driving force today.

I have found that the best source of what the intentions REALLY were is to go back and research the media at that moment.  As a society we have a very bad habit of re-writing our own history based on looking through the lens of our current experiences and somehow tying them together with the motives of 100 years ago. That article, to me, seemed like they were trying to do something good by protecting the students and the schools in what they saw as an unethical and unsafe environment.