Listen to the man, because this is as tough-sounding as he's going to get.
"They are student-athletes," says the man, simultaneously straining his voice and attempting to turn his lips into a scowl-like frown. "They are not our employees, they don't work for us.
"They are our students, so we don't pay them."
Notice the declarations in his words? They are not our employees. They don't work for us. We don't pay them.
Take note, boys and girls. That's exactly how you don't start off a new job -- by alienating the very people who pay your salary and allow for your job to exist.
This man's name? Mark Emmert, the 59-year-old NCAA president in his first year on the job in what is most assuredly a tough time for the vilified organization, and he's not doing himself any favors with his first actions.
His pedigree's pretty good. Emmert worked in higher education for 25 years before taking the NCAA job in April of last year, previously touring the country at places like the University of Colorado, Montana State University and his alma mater, the University of Washington. He took office at the NCAA on November 1.
Now, give him this: the time he took over was perhaps the most difficult time in the history of collegiate athletics, with former president Myles Brand -- who passed away in September 2009 -- leaving a wide-reaching legacy of success but with the NCAA seriously struggling in the one year between Brand's departure and Emmert's appointment.
He had the worst of both worlds, essentially -- big shoes to fill but small shoes in place. Still, Emmert's comments on one of the most pressing issues facing the NCAA as a whole are indefensible, and the fact that they came so quickly after his taking over office is puzzling, too. It's like he's never read a basic book about politics, which generally have one key for aspiring rule-makers and big wigs: stay away from controversial issues for as long as possible.
Mark Emmert definitely didn't do that.
His stance on the issue didn't have to be released so quickly. He could have waited a bit, told the media and the public that he was waiting to evaluate some second-hand issues and gain a full grasp of the situation.
That would've been understandable. But, no: on his first trip to Los Angeles while on the job, Emmert took the mic at a town hall luncheon in Downtown and did his best to sound tough.
He reasoned, too, giving some of the best arguments for not paying student-athletes while skipping past all of the arguments for paying them.
"They get to have experiences that very few students get a chance to enjoy," Emmert said. "If they take full advantage of it, they will have spectacular opportunities in life."
Sure thing, Mark. Do you know what else they get?
A decree to do not anything else. Seriously. Scholarship student-athletes are not allowed to take on a paying job from August to May each year, despite the fact that every other student at every other university in the Unoi has a right to do so if they so desire. What about the hours they have to work each week? There are at least 20 required hours Monday-Friday plus strongly suggested weekend and extra hours, plus even more time spent traveling and actually playing in games during seasons. Ask them -- collegiate athletes who put in less than 40 or 50 hours per week to their specific sport are not making it professionally.
No way, Jose. So to expect them to, in many cases, support fledging families on one $10,000 stipend for an entire school year is simply ridiculous.
Take a real look at what is often the situation. At least eight of the 80 players on scholarship on the USC football team have a kid and a girlfriend/wife they support. Yet, simply because they desire to play professionally at some point, they often must live in poverty, unable to make any other money.
The likelihood they will make significant money playing professional football is close to nil. The likelihood USC will make significant money from their playing collegiate football is close to certain. Yes, the schools, in many cases, profit handsomely -- think $30 or 40 million a year on football -- from the on-court or on-field performances of their student-athletes.
The actual student-athletes don't.
Yet, because of a host of Draconian, nonsensical rules that governed the NCAA since its inception in 1906, we refuse to pay these kids.
With a new president in place, there was a hope in some circles that the rules would eventually be reversed, that student-athletes would finally be appropriately compensated for all they do.
But, thanks to Mark Emmert and his ridiculous hard-line stance, we know they won't.
Now let's see what kind of support he gets from the general public.
No comments:
Post a Comment