Mark Emmert's mission to commute the NCAA has brought contr everyplacesy and resistance, entirely he says the reform attack is working 'despite all the racket that's been screaming around in the background'
NCAA president Mark Emmert outlined Monday the details of an away report on the organization's handling of an en impelment investigation into the University of Miami.(Photo: LM Otero AP)
INDIANAPOLIS -- No other briny(prenominal) executive in the history of the NCAA has stirred up a storm quite like this.
Since the hiring of President Mark Emmert in 2010, the NCAA has handed d admit 48 major rules violation cases against piece schools – a rate that is far higher than any of Emmert's predecessors, consort to a review by the States immediately Sports. It's 25% higher than the previous NCAA president and doesn't even include the ii most controversial punishment cases under Emmert's watch – Penn advance and Miami.
- Emmert, 60, also created some strife at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis, having ousted several well-regarded NCAA management officials with decades of experience.
- He's beefed up the rules enforcement staff – the NCAA's police force – by 44%, from 41 in 2010 to a new high of 59.
- By August, Emmert hopes to go through a broader and faster crackdown on rule-breaking schools by increasing the NCAA's committee on infractions – its judge and jury -- from 10 to as many as 24 members.
"That's as hard- earnting as we can possibly be with it," Emmert told USA TODAY Sports in an exclusive interview delay week at NCAA headquarters.
RELATED: Digging into Emmert's past
It's all part of a jolting reform process intentional to change the NCAA – step up rules enforcement in college sports while locomote up the process with a rulebook that's less interlocking. But it's a mission that has been hounded by resistance to some proposals and controversy, particularly over the handling of the Miami and Penn State cases. While Emmert says he is trying to transform an organization with nearly 1,100 member schools, he's faced lawsuits and accusations of moving besides fast, overstepping his bounds and firing employees who thought they were doing what he wanted.
"You get confronted with all the schools and interests (in the NCAA) and all the reasons why things move slowly come up, and it hit him in the face," utter Jo Potuto, a Nebraska law prof and former chair of the NCAA infractions committee.
Under the supervision of his bosses on the NCAA executive committee, Emmert's parturiency is to lead major reforms at the NCAA. The agenda has three main components, all stemming from a retreat Emmert held with college presidents in August 2011: improve the academic performance of athletes, get tougher on rule-breakers and simplify its notoriously complex rulebook.
Many member schools also wanted reform to admirer curb the runaway costs in college athletics – an effort that has failed to take off because of disagreement almost what to do nearly it between schools with athletic programs struggling to pay bills versus the index numberhouses that drive the bell tag ever higher.
Overall, Emmert says the reform effort "has been quite boffo despite all the noise that's been screaming around in the background."
A progress report:
Academic performance: The NCAA increased the Academic come along Rate standard and enforced a postseason ban for teams that decease below it. If you're not on track to graduate at least half your players, you don't play in the postseason. "Sitting here today, I'd say we got an `A' on that one," Emmert says.
But there is a side found that can form in college sports when academic expectations are increased. about athletes flock toward majors that give them more than flexibility to persevere eligible for competition. For example, at LSU, where Emmert was chancellor from 1999-2004, the 2004 LSU football media guide listed about 44 of 90 football players as general studies majors. It's an takings that has continued at many schools.
Emmert acknowledged the tradeoff.
"Whenever we increase academic expectations… we run the risk of student-athletes having a more difficult clipping filling in specific majors, and you see fewer students gravitating toward engineering majors or other majors where they don't have as ofttimes flexibility," Emmert says. "It doesn't surprise me."
Rules enforcement: More rules enforcement staff has led to more infractions cases. The rate of major infractions cases under Emmert is more than double that of old NCAA chief Walter Byers, who retired in 1987, according to NCAA data. Of the 48 major infractions cases under Emmert, 13 were in major college football and another 13 were in Division I men's basketball
"We set up a penalty social organization that reinforced the drab concerns – those infractions that were serious panics to integrity – in a way that the penalty structure was shifted so there was much greater emphasis on those and not so much worry about secondary things," Emmert says.
Emmert said this effort is "on track." But more competitive enforcement has brought controversy. The NCAA lacks subpoena power – the power to compel witnesses to cooperate. Instead, "innovative" fact-finding techniques were encouraged, at least until they backfired during the NCAA's recent investigation of the University of Miami football program. In that case, an NCAA investigator arranged to pay the attorney of a Miami lifter to gather evidence through the booster's bankruptcy court proceeding.
After the tactical maneuver became public, Emmert and Miami President Donna Shalala condemned it. The investigator was fired, and so was the NCAA's vice president for enforcement, Julie roe Lach, who recently was replaced by attorney Jon Duncan on an interim basis. To critics, it seemed Emmert was deceit outrage and sacrificing his subordinates in the face of criticism over his own agenda. Moreover, what innovative tools can the NCAA use to gather evidence and abide on the right side of ethics?
"That's a converse we're having right now in the enforcement department," Duncan told USA TODAY Sports last month.
Deregulation: In 1952, the NCAA published its first rulebook. It was 25 pages and included scantily three paragraphs to regulate recruiting. In 1977, the rulebook had grown to 148 pages. In 1987, it was 299. at once it's over 700 pages covering three divisions. The Division I rulebook is " to a fault complex," Emmert says.
Emmert says the effort to reduce it is making "good progress, but we're passing have to debate some of the more controversial pieces and see where they go."
It probably won't be easy.
One example came recently when coaches and athletic directors objected to NCAA plans to relieve restrictions on recruiting staff size and printed materials that can be send to recruits. Without limits, many coaches and athletic directors grew concerned it would lead to an "arms run for" to outdo and outspend the competition, more like the NFL.
"Historically any term the association has tried to have any significant reform, it learns those rules were all put there for a reason," former NCAA President Cedric Dempsey told USA TODAY Sports.
Misunderstood job?
Emmert says the hardest part of his presidency so far is dispelling what he says are "mythologies" about the way the NCAA pisss decisions and the power of his office. foreign the heads of pro sports leagues, Emmert does not decide punishments. He also doesn't make the rules. Those generally are the duties of the NCAA's committee on infractions and the representatives of NCAA schools.
"I constantly tell people, Don't think about it as a command-control structure,'" Emmert said of the NCAA's balance of power. "Think of it like the United Nations. The decision-making structure looks and feels much more like that. In many ways, it's more complex than Congress."
Some Penn State supporters argue the structure is less democratic than that. sound year, the NCAA slammed Penn State with a four-year bowl ban and $60 trillion fine last year related to the alleged underwrite of child sex abuse by former service football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Instead of investigating the case on its own, the NCAA bypassed its juridical arm -- the NCAA infractions committee – and accepted the findings of an investigation commissioned by the university. The case was fast-tracked by Emmert, the NCAA executive committee and the Division I board of directors. Penn State ultimately agreed to the penalties under the threat of even harsher punishment from the NCAA.
The state of Pennsylvania is now suing the NCAA, locution the aggressive action was an overreach to "boost the reputation and power of the NCAA's president."
Yet, to some degree, Emmert is herding cats – nearly 1,100 schools have 1,100 different and often contradictory interests. At the same time, critics wonder where the buck stops at the NCAA when things go wrong. Emmert is the public face of the NCAA but often notes the limitations on his power. He also points out the NCAA president doesn't get snarled in infractions cases.
"It is as if each entity or individual deep down the (NCAA) system can point a finger at another entity or individual actor," says Richard Southall, director of the College Sport inquiry Institute at the University of North Carolina.
Southall described it as a "deflection of responsibility." To Emmert, he is serving the wishes of his membership.
"I think it's burning(prenominal) to differentiate Mark Emmert's agenda, from what's the membership's agenda," he says. "The confusion that occurs most oft with the NCAA is people tend to think of the NCAA as like the NFL or NBA. In fact, we're this very complex 1,100-member voluntary association, and every rule, every policy, every bylaw is a creature of that membership."
Follow Brent Schrotenboer on twitter @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@usatoday.com
Contributor: Rachel George.
Materials taken from USA Today
0 comments:
Post a Comment