So much for new NCAA president Mark Emmert embracing the status quo. Not an hour after the current University of Washington president was chosen to succeed the late Myles Brand on Tuesday, he said of his new position, “This is an opportunity to help shape one of the great American institutions.”
Not oversee. Not manage. Shape, as in change.
And change can certainly be a good thing. When it comes to the NCAA, it’s pretty much a necessary thing, given the cesspool that is Division I football and men’s basketball.
To borrow a phrase made popular in our nation’s capitol the past two years, transparency is desperately needed when it comes to recruiting, academic progress, athletes’ rights and athletes’ responsibilities, coaching conduct and administrative oversight.
And that’s just off the fields and courts of competition. On the field, the Bowl Championship Series either needs a complete overhaul or a favored spot in the nearest trash bin.
Then there’s the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which could definitely use a much more transparent criteria for selection and seeding — no worse than a .500 league mark for selection and adhering to the S-curve seeding process (the top No. 1 plays the worst No. 2, and so forth) would be a nice start.
And University of Tennessee at Chattanooga chancellor Dr. Roger Brown seems to think those issues will initially take up a good deal of Emmert’s time when he officially begins his new job in November.
As Brown wrote Wednesday in an e-mail: “It’s way too early in President Emmert’s administration to start talking changes right now. He’s going to have his hands full with questions over football championships and basketball tournaments.”
But Brown would gladly counsel Emmert on one issue, the Academic Progress Rate (APR), if asked.
The APR — a metric the NCAA uses to measure how well an athletic team is moving its players toward graduation — was Brand’s crowning achievement. Passed in 2005, it was supposed to force schools to do more than merely keep players eligible. It was supposed to advance them toward degrees. And evidence shows it’s working.
But at UTC’s level — where academic tutoring and counseling is far less affordable than at cash-cow conferences such as the SEC, ACC and Big Ten — the APR has been a nightmare. The Mocs football program was banned from postseason play this past year and despite overwhelming progress it won’t be completely free of sanctions until this time next year.
“It’s a four-year rolling average,” said UTC athletic director Rick Hart, who wasn’t on the job when the problems arose. “It’s one of the most unpleasant things to deal with. Unfortunately, there is nobody to blame but us.”
But there is plenty of blame to go around beyond UTC, beginning with an NCAA formula that can be draconian in its penalties for those with slight resources.
“I think there has been some progress made on improving the APR process,” said Brown. “I’d like to see some changes made in how transfer students are handled. If a student (athlete) leaves UTC and goes on to graduate from another campus, I do not think we should be penalized for that student’s decision (as is currently the case).”
He’s also not wild about the NCAA’s rigidity as it pertains to student-athletes changing majors.
“In higher education, we know that most students change their majors a few times, but student-athletes sometimes do not have that option. Shouldn’t the athlete have the same right to change majors as other students without losing eligibility? I think so.”
Whether or not Emmert also thinks so may go a long way in defining whether he sees college athletics through the eyes of rich and powerful NCAA members such as his University of Washington or his former employer LSU, or whether he can sympathize with the have-nots such as UTC.
But if he’s truly concerned with reshaping the NCAA, he might focus on what that other Washington learned during the 2008 election, which is that there are a whole lot more have-not than haves these days.
E-mail Mark Wiedmer at mwiedmer@timesfreepress.com