re: Dan Patrick is making Mark Emmert look like a clown right now.

A million shirts is a lot of shirts...

I don't think Emmert came off as getting owned. He brought up a lot of valid points regarding paying the players. It was actually a fairly informative interview thanks to Patrick prodding him some.

I don't think the majority of people realize how many cans of worms would open up were the athletes to get paid.

It IS unfair to the athletes. However, it's basically impossible to police what's going on were they to receive monetary compensation in any form from outside parties.

I like Cal's suggestions on fixing the system more than I do overhauling the entire thing and allowing third parties to come in and give these kids money.

ETA: Someone is going to lose this battle. The university, the athletes, or the fans. I find it slightly hypocritical for the athletes to target the NCAA instead of the available options to them outside of the NCAA. You don't see baseball players complaining because they have options out of high school.

quote:

---

It IS unfair to the athletes

---

meh

It's an optional agreement that no athlete has to enter/continue under.

quote:

---

Autographs? Oh yea,EVERY big time alum of the school will line up to "buy up" autographs from just about anybody who's on the roster.

---

as opposed to the way they're paid under the table now?

quote:

---

Really? So you just want every college and their alumni base to have the ability to put unlimited funds in their players pockets?And you don't see anything wrong with that?You really want to open up that can of worms? 

---

Man, what do you think is happening right now in college athletics?

quote:

---

seriously? Fournette would've had boosters from Bama, LSU and every other big time college funneling him a ton of money buying those shirts if it were legal.

---

thank God for the current rules so that doesn't happen!

quote:

---

as opposed to the way they're paid under the table now?

---

I'm not sure what you think your point is.

The NCAA has rules against paying under the table.

quote:

---

Not even close...you think it's bad now and you want to legalize alumni having unlimited access to these guys and paying them whatever they want?

Yes,it'll be far worse and more corrupt than it is now.

---

No, it will be far better and more honest than what is going on now.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you think your point is. 

The NCAA has rules against paying under the table.

---

If you can't see all the reasons why a system set up for the climate at the time like 70 years ago is completely antiquated broken and needs complete revamping, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

quote:

---

I like Patrick. And, Emmert has failed multiple times as NCAA president.

But, Patrick totally whiffed on this interview. I was really shocked on how uninformed he was.

On the food issue, he mistook the NCAA removing restrictions on food with the NCAA providing food 100% of the time.

On the NBA 2 year rule, he totally misplaces the authority to implement said rule with the NCAA. Emmert had to explain to him that the NCAA has no legal authority to implement that rule.

And, on the pay issue, he seems to have taken this oversimplified predisposition that paying players is simple and the right thing to do. Every time Emmert began to explain the situation it seemed to go over his head.

I was really disappointed with Patrick. If he's mouthing off about Emmert after that interview, it just shows his ignorance, I didn't hear a single thing Emmert say that was wrong and Patrick was misinformed constantly.

---

All of this. I'm almost finished listening to the interview, and Emmert hasn't been "owned" in any sort of way to me. He is VERY informed and does a very good job of explaining things in layman's terms to Dan.

Good interview, but I feel like the OP was just feeding off the DP bullshite and blindly agreeing that DP was clowning Emmert, when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Emmert handled himself very well IMO.

Dan is missing the forest for the trees at the end of this interview with the whole Johnny Manziel vs. A&M thing. He wants to make it a "A&M made money, so why can't JFF" argument, and that's not what it's about with paying players. So is Dan advocating only paying the great players? Because good fricking luck with that. And he's completely ignoring the fact that A&M itself is one of the huge reasons JFF was as successful as he was. Dan tries to simplify it as "Johnny Manziel would've been good at football no matter where he played." But it's nowhere near as simple as that.