|Mark Emmert, about to scrape the charred remains of the Husky swimming program from the bottom of his frying pan in 2009.|
So, Mark Emmert wrapped up his NCAA retreat and is being applauded for actually making a decision without doing the standard NCAA "let's form a committee and a task force and come talk about this again in five years." Well, from the sound of it, they talked about a lot of stuff and ended up moving on just one decision. They plan to hold some teams out of post-season play if they don't meet grade standards, which I guess would have taken some heavy hitters out of the basketball tournament this year according to the scores that will now be required... but of course those schools will find a way to pay for whatever necessary tutors and bribes they need to be in compliance. That's how it works. Apparently they have to have a record of half of their students on track to graduate. That shouldn't be too hard to get around, right?
If you read this article at SI.com you can see some of the other things they talked about and plan to address in the near future. Of course, there wasn't really anything about non-revenue sports being cut. Gee, I wonder why that didn't come up? Wasn't there recently some kind of a cooperative agreement between the USOC and the NCAA to address that? I tried to google it but apparently it is not big enough news to even come up on a web search. Go figure.
The best part of the Sports Illustrated write up was this: When they talked about allowing athletes to be paid additional money to cover the "true costs of college" it was actually brought up that only the big conferences could afford it and that would give them a competitive advantage. Wow. They acknowledged one of the many legitimate problems with it... but of course it was all shrugged off when "the presidents seemed to be lock-step with the commissioners in believing said imbalance already exists."
So, why is it a problem if we make it worse? Just a drop in the bucket, right?