ESPN Men's Basketball

Understatement alert: In the NCAA, change never comes easy. There are various committees and vying constituencies and a democratic process and, sure, a long-standing resistance to change for no other reason than that -- it's change. NCAA president Mark Emmert has been more proactive than many of his predecessors during his tenure at the top, and the NCAA is going through a tumultuous time, but in general, when you're talking NCAA, you're talking about things that have been and always will be, and that's just the way it is.

Which is why it's kind of refreshing to see the organization make a small but nonetheless welcome tweak. Beginning at the 2013 Final Four in Atlanta, the NCAA will hold the championships not only for our beloved Division I, but for all three men's basketball divisions. From the Associated Press:

Both the Division II and Division III champions will be crowned on April 7, with the tentative site being Philips Arena. Next season's men's Division I national semifinals are April 6 at the Georgia Dome, as is the national championship game on April 8.

The NCAA says the moves are being made in part to add to the 75th anniversary celebration of college basketball's annual championship tournament.

"We're looking to create a bit of history and really allow more and more people to see all three championships at the same time," NCAA executive vice president for championships Mark Lewis said.

I don't really care about the whole 75th-anniversary thing. It's nice, I suppose, but it's not like the NCAA tournament as we currently know it has been around for three-quarters of a century. It's changed too often and too significantly to feel like a continuous thing.

I am, however, excited for Division II and Division III men's basketball at the Final Four. I will totally go watch those games!* I would imagine many of the fans in town for the Final Four will do the same. It's college basketball, after all, and even if the level isn't as high, it will be hard-fought and at least three or four steps above your typical high school basketball game, and high school basketball games can be plenty entertaining in their own way.

Plus, it's just good public relations, right? The NCAA gets to showcase the work it does away from the billion-dollar TV contracts, and emphasize the importance of the student-athlete in a much more tangible way. And the schools involved get some of the attention and spotlight, if only for a day, otherwise spent parsing players' quotes and talking about national championship strategy.

I might be too excited for this. I am probably too excited for this. But it is a pretty great idea.

The NCAA has a lot of things on the to-do list these days, but hey -- credit where it's due.

*Provided my mean old editors don't make me, like, work. Pshh. Work.

1. The National Association of Basketball Coaches board of directors met with NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday in Indianapolis and, according to at least one source in the room, there is support to close up a few transfer loopholes. The coaches and Emmert discussed making any player who wants to transfer sit out a year, even if he or she has graduated and is seeking a waiver to play immediately at a school that has a graduate program that isn’t available at the current school. The discussion also turned to the waiver that allows a player to play immediately if a relative is ill. That, too, could be closed. The consensus among the coaches is that if anyone transfers, he should sit out a year, even if that means a sixth year in college. The coaches also wanted some sort of universal language on transfer restrictions, maybe even an NCAA rule that forbids transferring within a league. Conferences and schools create their own policies on restricting transfers. According to the NCAA spokesperson, Emmert is going to put together a process to review and make recommendations that includes coaches' input.

2. North Texas athletic director Rick Villarreal said Thursday night that he has a policy that he doesn’t release players who have signed with North Texas or leave the program during their career. Conversely, he won’t allow his coaches, even new ones like men’s basketball coach Tony Benford, to cut a player based on ability. He said the only way a player will be released is if there is an academic or behavior issue. This is relevant because signee John Odoh may want to follow former coach Johnny Jones to LSU. Villarreal said Odoh hasn’t asked for a release yet. If he does, don’t expect a release -- or at least not one to LSU. Villarreal was adamant that Odoh was recruited by Jones with Mean Green funds. Players may leave, but without a release, meaning they would then have to pay their own scholarships.

3. Incoming NCAA tournament selection committee chair Mike Bobinski said that 2013 East Regional sites were discussed Thursday in Indianapolis, and that a decision is due in two weeks. Syracuse and Brooklyn, N.Y., appear to be the favorites. The initial four candidates also included New York City (Madison Square Garden) and Newark, N.J. MSG is booked. Newark hasn’t been eliminated yet.

David Stern doesn't care about college basketball.

It helps if you read that sentence in your best Kanye West telethon voice (and if you can picture Mike Myers' shocked face in your mind's eye, all the better), but in any case, it's true. The NBA commissioner is concerned with building his league and keeping his owners happy. He really doesn't care about what the NBA's age rule has done to college basketball, and why should he? He has a professional league to run.

So when Stern reiterates his belief the NBA should have a two-year age minimum, as he did Friday morning on the Dan Patrick Show, he is not throwing NCAA president Mark Emmert a much-needed bone. In fact, Stern has consistently said he believes the one-and-done rule isn't enough, that NBA owners and general managers would prefer another year to evaluate players before they can enter the draft not because those guys miss the good old days when college basketball was a national attraction, but because NBA GMs simply can't help themselves. They fall in love with potential, they make draft mistakes, they cripple their franchises, and they turn around and tank seasons in hopes of landing the next big thing in the next NBA draft. Here's looking at you, Charlotte.

None of this is revelatory information. What was interesting about Stern's radio appearance Friday (hat tip: Matt Norlander) was his belief that pretty much everyone agrees with him, including individual NBA players. To wit:

"I think it would be a great idea to change it to two-and-done," Stern said. "Everyone I hear from -- NBA players, actually; college coaches; NBA teams -- everyone says it's a pretty good idea, except the [NBPA], whose consent is necessary to change it. So, what I tell people to do is, 'Don't call me, call their union.'"

According to Stern, NBA players agree the rule needs to be changed, but the union that represents them -- the National Basketball Players Association -- does not. That's a fun way to take a shot at union president Billy Hunter, who -- oh by the way -- currently finds himself ensnared in a massive nepotism mess amid claims that the union has paid his family about $4.8 million since 2001. In any case, this is confusing. If so many NBA players wanted to change the rule, why was it such an afterthought during the 2011 collective bargaining sessions? We went into the lockout assuming the age limit would be at least some kind of bargaining chip; by the end, it remained unchanged, and with nary a shred of post hoc discussion. Why?

Because during the lockout, Stern and the owners quickly gave up on that discussion. The commissioner admitted as much back in late March:

Stern acted as if Emmert and the NCAA know full well what happened when raising the draft age minimum to 20 or 21 came up during last year's NBA lockout, as the league and its players association negotiated their new collective bargaining agreement. So cut the posturing.

"We proposed to the players two more [years], and it was sufficiently contentious around that," Stern said, adding that the issue was slid over to a subcommittee.

To be fair, there were far more important things -- like, hey, where is all that money going? -- to negotiate. But it seems unlikely a majority of players would favor a rule change and not use that willingness as some sort of bargaining chip during the lockout. Either Hunter is a man on a one-and-done mission, ignoring the requests of his players in pursuit of ... something, or most NBA players actually feel for the high schooler who can't begin earning money as soon as he is physically ready to do so.

Which leaves us where we are now: Stern and Emmert and even Mark Cuban agree amateur basketball players would do well to stay in school for one or two years. Most college fans and pundits believe a two-and-through rule, or something like Major League Baseball's system (in which players can be drafted out of high school but must stay in college for three years if they elect to go) would be better for everyone involved.

The NBA commissioner has no interest in helping college basketball. The best hope is what's best for the NBA turns out to be best for college hoops, too. But if NBA players don't agree -- and other than Stern's word, we have little evidence that's the case -- this is all just talk. Sigh.

ESPN.com’s Eamonn Brennan spoke with NCAA president Mark Emmert in Phoenix last week about a wide range of topics, including compensating student-athletes and the APR appeals process.

It seems like this, and other stuff you've done -- I know you were on Mike & Mike and in Bristol last week.

Mark Emmert: Yeah, I did the whole car wash treatment.

Right -- there seems to be a concerted effort to be more proactive [with the media], to get the message out a little more than past administrations. Is that a fair statement?

Emmert: I can't speak to the past, but there has historically been an impression that the NCAA is sort of a black box and impermeable. I want to make sure that's not the case. I want to make sure we're being as transparent and open as we can be about what we do, why we do it, how we're doing it, what the facts are, and for me that's been a very useful approach all my career and it certainly makes sense here.

You came in a tumultuous time for the NCAA. If you had to pick one, what has been the most difficult challenge since you started your tenure?

Emmert: It's not any one incident as much as it is the moment in time in college sports. There's more, I guess, critique and concern about college sports than any time in the past 20 years or so. There's more misunderstanding about what the real facts are and aren't. There are more collisions between the collegiate and the commercial models than before. So I think's it the whole environment right now is very challenging.

Because at the same time, we've got these extraordinarily positive things going on. The game we just watched [Florida-Louisville on Saturday] is a great example of it. Best graduation rates in history, more people being attentive to college sports than ever, more people participating in college sports than ever, so you've got this in one sense best of times worst of times thing, and it's that dichotomy that I think is the most challenging.

This is the one question right now that I hear most [from fans], and it's pretty blunt: Why can't college athletes be paid? Or, why is it the position of the NCAA that college athletes shouldn't be paid?

Emmert: Because this is about a model completely different than professional athletics. College athletics has always been about college students who happen to be athletes. Indeed, the NCAA was created over one hundred years ago to prevent that professionalization of the sport, to differentiate it from professional athletics. The whole notion is that these are young men and young women who come to universities, who play athletics avocationally and represent their schools. When you convert those student-athletes into professional athletes, then they're virtually no different than NBA and NFL or MLB.

That's all fine. I have nothing against those professional sports. But college sport has always been intended to be something quite different.

What are your thoughts, or the NCAA's stance, on an Olympics-style model, where amateurism still exists in some form but athletes are allowed to go outside and secure endorsements?

Emmert: The problem is the analogy doesn't work. It's one people like to use, but we have two responsibilities here. One is to make sure that student-athletes are students and athletes, and we work on that collegiate model. The other is to provide a level of competitive fairness across institutions and conference that makes sense. That doesn't happen at all in the Olympics. When a young man or woman is trying out for the Olympic rowing team, the Swedes aren't over here recruiting them. If they're an American, they're an American. They row for America. That's that.

Imagine if you were going to have sponsorships in oh, let's just say, the state of Alabama. Do you think there might be competition between sponsorships between Auburn and Alabama? Or between Michigan and Ohio State? Or between Texas and Oklahoma? You would immediately convert it into a professional model, with students going to the highest bidder. And then they're no longer student-athletes, they're professionals.

(Read full post)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Quick thoughts on 11th-seeded Colorado's 68-64 victory over No. 6 seed UNLV:

Overview: Colorado carried the momentum of its four-game run to the Pac-12 tournament title into a convincing second-round NCAA win over UNLV at the Pit. This wasn’t close. Colorado looked like it was the champ of a major league from the opening tip against a team that ended up behind New Mexico and San Diego State in the Mountain West. The confidence with which the Buffaloes played, from making 3s to contesting shots to rebounding, was unmatched at times by the Runnin’ Rebels. This scrappy bunch of Buffs was playing with house money. Colorado coach Tad Boyle said Wednesday that the pressure was all off the Buffs. He was right. They played as loose as any of the eight teams in the field here at the Pit. But they are still the Buffaloes and couldn’t close. UNLV made quite a run to get it within one possession, but then Colorado showed poise, created turnovers and converted free throws.

Turning point: UNLV had cut the deficit to three, and the Runnin’ Rebels were on the verge of making it a one-point game. But a quick turn of events occurred when Andre Roberson blocked a shot and it led to a runout for Carlon Brown, who flushed home a jam. That gave the Buffs a 60-55 lead and a chance to breath. The Runnin’ Rebels would cut the lead to three one more time at 67-64 with 8 seconds left on a rainbow 3-pointer by Chace Stanback.

Key player: There were a lot of choices here, but a pair of back-to-back 3s by Austin Dufault early in the second half were decisive. They helped send a strong message that the Buffs weren’t going to back down. Dufault ended up with 14 points. He was an efficient 3-of-4 on 3s. But his bang-bang triples were crucial to creating some distance between the two teams after the break.

Key stat: Rebounding. The Runnin’ Rebels went into the game as the more aggressive rebounding team. It shouldn’t have been close. And it wasn’t. The Buffaloes dominated the backboard. Colorado outrebounded UNLV 43-30. UNLV couldn't get second shots on a consistent enough basis to take the lead.

Miscellaneous: Colorado gets major props for its fan contingent. The Buffs brought their A-game. I remember going to a few CU games in Boulder in the '90s, and it was never this loud. The enthusiasm for this team has certainly resonated. ... NCAA president Mark Emmert didn’t last the whole second game. I’m sure he was off to another site for Friday. ... Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott was behind the Colorado bench and so was interim Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas. Neinas lives in Colorado, and the Buffs used to be in the Big 12/Big Eight. ... The Buffs had the karma going the moment they stepped on the Pit floor. Assistant coach Tom Abatemarco was an assistant on the 1983 NC State team that won the epic title game in this building.

What’s next: Colorado will play Baylor on Saturday in what would appear to be a mismatch. The Buffs don’t have the interior length to match the third-seeded Bears. But why would anyone doubt the Buffs' ability to make this a game and pull off the upset? This will easily be the toughest game for the Buffs since this run started.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Vanderbilt finally solved its Kentucky problem by winning the SEC tournament on Sunday in New Orleans.

But that did nothing to answer its larger issue: winning in the NCAA tournament.

Double-digit seeds had flummoxed the Commodores in three of the past four NCAA tournaments with losses to Siena, Murray State and Richmond.

Harvard was a sentimental favorite in making its first NCAA tournament since 1946. Oh, and the Crimson were seeded No. 12, making this one of those dreaded 5-12 games.

“It’s well publicized that Vandy’s lost in the first round the last three out of four years,’’ said Harvard senior guard Oliver McNally. “So we knew if we were hanging around, we’d put that thought in their head and see what happened. And I thought we were going to do that.’’

Vandy had an 18-point lead on Harvard on Thursday afternoon at the Pit. And then suddenly it was five.

“Credit to them for coming out really strong after that and being strong with the ball and making free throws,’’ McNally said. “But we made a great run.’’

The Commodores held on to win 79-70 and looked every bit the part of a team that could beat No. 4 Wisconsin on Saturday in a third-round game for the right to possibly take on East top seed Syracuse (if the Orange can knock off Kansas State in Pittsburgh on Saturday).

John Jenkins was sensational with 27 points. The Dores got plenty of pop from Brad Tinsley, Jeffery Taylor and 11 boards from Festus Ezeli. Vanderbilt’s big four came through when it mattered most.

Vandy can exhale -- for now.

“I didn’t want to be in that tight of a situation with the way we had the game going in our favor,’’ said Vandy coach Kevin Stallings. “But since we won, I’m glad it unfolded that way.’’

Stallings knew the toughness question was relevant with this squad during the SEC tournament. The Dores simply didn’t have the track record to back up their belief that they were over their late-game issues.

And comments like Taylor’s that the big lead led to a bit of relaxation and too much standing on offense just contributed to the narrative. But there was something the Dores had that had been missing even in last-second losses in previous NCAAs to Siena and Murray State: composure.

Jenkins used a different word -- poised. “I think leadership is definitely a factor in that guys huddled up and decided we need to lock down and get rebounds down the stretch,” he said. “We did what we had to do. We hit big free throws.’’

The Dores had one possession that took the lead from 11 to 14 with a four-shot sequence that ended up in a traditional 3-point play for Jenkins. That lead ballooned to 18. Harvard made its run, but the hole was too deep.

“I think our maturity showed up a little bit there,’’ Tinsley said. “We were playing not to lose instead of playing to win. You can never do that, especially in the NCAA tournament.’’

Vanderbilt could finally talk about its albatross after the win.

“It really means a lot for the seniors to be our last time in the NCAA tournament,’’ Tinsley said. “We just kind of got that monkey off our back and win a close game in the first round. It just means a lot to us old guys, the coaching staff and the program.’’

Getting into the NCAA tournament did that as well for Harvard. The Crimson didn’t just show up for the first time in 66 years. They got off to a rocky start and scrapped their way back.

Harvard senior Keith Wright said that getting into the NCAA tournament and representing the Ivy League, especially after losing the playoff to Princeton at the buzzer last season, was a celebration of all the hard work put forth.

“It’s just really special and I’m really glad to be a part of it,’’ said McNally. “They sell you on all kinds of dreams but Coach (Tommy) Amaker had a plan and this plan was followed through. Not only were there good players but really good people. We made the tournament. We wanted to advance. That was obviously the ultimate goal.’’

But this meant more to the Ivy League and to Harvard to have its flagship name finally make the dance.

Alumni from the White House to an 86-year-old surviving member of the 1946 team — the Crimson's previous NCAA entry — could all feel good about this run. The latter was Don Swegan, who was at the Pit in his old Harvard sweater. He was in his glory, talking to other alumni. The Friends of Harvard hoops read about Swegan on ESPN.com and wanted to make sure he made it to Albuquerque from near Youngstown, Ohio, so they paid for his expenses. NCAA president Mark Emmert and Harvard alumnus and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott wanted to have their picture taken with Swegan.

These were good memories for him, the Harvard program and a clear signal that the Crimson aren’t going into NCAA tournament hibernation.

“For us to represent our school and conference for the first time in so many years and to have so many folks come and cheer us on means so much to us,’’ Amaker said. “This has been and is a big deal.’’

Editor's Note: For Dana O'Neil's game preview, click here. Also, check out a historic photo gallery of basketball being played on aircraft carriers for decades, including a WWII-era shot of a future President.

SAN DIEGO -- A number of sailors, some on and some off duty, milled around the court atop the USS Carl Vinson on Thursday, giddy about getting to watch North Carolina-Michigan State in an unprecedented event Friday.

The sailors, like everyone else involved in this game -- from the president to the Secretary of the Navy to the captain of the ship to every member of the military on board -- will still actually get the chance, regardless of the weather. The threat of rain is diminishing for Friday night, which is a huge relief to those who fretted over what was a more foreboding forecast a couple days ago.

The conditions were so perfect Thursday evening that Michigan State coach Tom Izzo said during the team’s shootaround, “We’re playing here. It will be this nice. It’s beautiful.’’

The decision to play the game on the deck, as originally planned, was actually made Wednesday morning, according to the game’s initial innovator, Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis. Hollis said a half-set was put together in the hangar below deck. And it was a disaster.

If the game had been moved below deck, it would have had a totally different feel. Seating was only good for 2,500, rather than 7,000. Hollis said the Navy would have had to set up viewing stations around the ship with televisions. It simply wouldn't have been the same.

“It was like a small junior high gymnasium down there,’’ Hollis said. “No one wanted it to happen.’’

Not the coaches. Not the players. Not the military personnel. No one.

“I had a few of the troops say that if this game isn’t outside, they won’t see it,’’ North Carolina sophomore Harrison Barnes said.

Hollis said there is a rain contingency plan -- simply a rain delay. A number of servicemen from a nearby base volunteered throughout the week, setting up the court and the stands. They put a tarp, just like on a baseball diamond, over the court each of the past three days. A tarp was on the court Thursday night.

“We’ll stop it if there is any kind of moisture,’’ Hollis said. “The biggest concern is the safety of the student-athletes.’’

Those student-athletes certainly don't seem concerned, though.

“This is so special to be the first outdoor college basketball game and anyone who doesn’t play for Michigan State or North Carolina can’t say they played in it,’’ Michigan State senior forward Draymond Green said. “If we went underneath, we couldn’t have said it either.

"You worry about the rain, but I grew up playing outside on the playground, and if there’s wind just shoot it off the backboard.’’

Hollis said a number of waivers had to be granted by the NCAA.

“There were a lot of operational logistics we were dealing with since we had the government, the Navy, the two institutions and the NCAA,’’ Hollis said. “The approval of the uniforms, the long sleeves, the ability to come out a day earlier than normal. There were a lot of things that [Big East coordinator of officials] Art Hyland and [NCAA coordinator of officials] John Adams had to help us get through for all the waivers. We also had to get the endorsement of [NCAA president] Mark Emmert and [NCAA vice president] Greg Shaheen.’’

The setup on the Vinson's flight deck, where normally 39 jets are stationed, ready to be deployed, is as picture-perfect as any venue in the history of the sport. The court sits on the middle of the deck, with the San Diego skyline across the water. The stands, which seat 7,000, are next to the court, with courtside seating for dignitaries that will include President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

At one point Thursday, sailors took turns sitting in their seats in their blue-tinted fatigues. The image was akin to an Army-Navy game.

North Carolina coach Roy Williams said he was filled with pride in advance of the game. His first reaction to coming on board the ship Wednesday was: “Wow. Wow. Every player had their phones and cameras out," Williams said. "No one was talking to each other. Their eyes and mouths were wide open. This is going to be a celebration.

"From the tipoff to the final horn, we’ll be working our tails off for the game. But we’ll be thinking about the smiles on the faces of the people who serve our country. We’re thrilled. It sends a cold chill for me just talking about it. It’s the neatest thing I’ve ever been involved in.’’

North Carolina’s Tyler Zeller said the last time he played outside was in middle school. He said he was a bit worried about his hook shot and sizing up the distance with the potential for wind.

The elements were on everyone’s mind, but not in a negative way.

“I like it out here,’’ North Carolina junior forward John Henson said. “I think we should get the Dean Dome to open up. I’d hate to go down low and miss this experience.’’

Barnes called the whole thing “unreal.”

“There’s no other way to say describe it," he said. "It’s so nice with the sky and the cool weather. There will be such a special aura about this game. No matter how far we go in the tournament, we’ll never see something like this. We’re showing appreciation for the troops, see how they live and this game is put in perspective.’’

Michigan State sophomore guard Keith Appling called this a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

“I’m only concerned that a couple of my shots get some wind and they could far right or far left,’’ he said with a laugh. “It might be embarrassing with the president in the stands.’’

Nevertheless, this game will be outside, whether there is wind or mist. That much we know.

“Weather is not going to be a factor,’’ Green said. “It’s going to be great.’’

College basketball teams that don't carry an Academic Progress Rate of at least 900 could face a ban from the NCAA tournament as soon as this season, NCAA president Mark Emmert said today, and according to Bloomberg, he noted that Connecticut would have been ineligible to win the national title had the new rule been in place last season.

From USA Today:

The NCAA's Committee on Academic Performance recommended that this be put in place for the 2012-13 season, but NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said the Division I board of directors will have the option of implementing it for this season.

Had the 900 APR requirement existed last season, Connecticut -- which won the tournament -- would not have been eligible to compete. UConn's APR was 893.

Had it been applied to last season's NCAA tournament, the 900 benchmark would have scratched three entrants: UAB (860), Alabama State (883) and UConn. A total of 33 Division I men's basketball programs were beneath 900 last season, also including Arkansas (892), Missouri State (896), Ball State (892), Toledo (858) and St. Bonaventure (894).

Currently, teams that fall below a rolling average of 900 can receive conditional waivers to avoid postseason bans for numerous reasons, including the demonstration of academic improvement. But if this proposal were approved, teams could be banned beginning this season or in the near future.

The move to tying graduation rates to postseason eligibility comes two months after the NCAA called for the APR threshold to be raised to 930, but that time would be given before that was put into place so teams could get their academics in order. This latest proposal passing would move up the deadline for the nation's worst-performing schools in terms of qualifying for the postseason. Emmert said the stricter 930 cutline would then be put into place in 24 months.

There remain questions as to how accurate of a gauge a rolling average of APR scores can measure academic achievement, but the NCAA is again making a move to tie those scores to NCAA tournament bids. With this latest proposal, college basketball's academic underachievers might have less time to get in shape than it was previously believed.

The NCAA willing to penalize a national championship-caliber program like UConn is certainly headline-grabbing material. Now the organization just has to decide how and when it decides to implement such a system that could take away lucrative NCAA tournament bids from big-name teams. Judging from the latest proposal, for the NCAA, the time could be now.

Conference realignment couldn't have come at a worse time for the NCAA. All summer, the conversation has centered on the viability of the amateur model. All summer, writers and analysts have questioned whether the NCAA can maintain its amateurism ideal. We've asked whether cost-of-attendance scholarships are enough to prevent students from trading memorabilia for tattoos, whether an Olympics style model would work better, whether the entire system is too broken to be tweaked.

Two weeks ago, as the horses of conference realignment apocalypse were beginning to ride again, Atlantic writer Taylor Branch unveiled a devastating critique of the NCAA. In 14,000 words, Branch -- a noted Civil Rights journalist with a Pulitzer Prize to his name -- dove deep into the history of the NCAA's amateurism ideal, excoriating the organization for building an institution that allows athletes to be make millions for their universities without the addition of health benefits or a decent wage. Instead, Branch argues, the NCAA's claim that a free education is payment enough "echoes masters who once claimed that heavenly salvation would outweigh earthly injustice to slaves." NPR contributor and legendary sportswriter Frank Deford said Branch's story "may well be the most important article ever written about college sports."

Branch's feature was excellent, but his hyperbole was overblown, as Basketball Propsectus's John Gasaway and Sports Illustrated's Seth Davis have eloquently argued in the weeks since the story was published. Davis also argued well the point that Branch neglected: While paying players seems obvious in theory, it is nearly impossible in practice; only a sliver of schools turn a yearly athletics profit, and it is impossible to untangle salaries for revenue and non-revenue athletes without destroying most schools' entire athletics budgets. Au revoir, women's tennis. (Branch responded to Davis's criticism here; his point is not necessarily that athletes should be paid, but that there is no legal basis to disallow them from negotiating the right to do so. He's not wrong, either.)

In any case, the Branch story, as ESPN's Jeff MacGregor wrote,

... might mean that a kind of cultural critical mass has finally been reached. The NCAA is about to collapse. At least in our esteem.

You might argue that critical mass had already been reached. Either way, the situation fans woke up to last week was this: A besieged NCAA, one whose very model is now seen by a majority of the public as cynically outdated and/or morally wrong, sat by as some of its biggest member conferences and best programs engaged in a silly, backstabbing conference realignment routine. And why? For more money. Always for more money. As Michael Wilbon wrote after Syracuse and Pittsburgh coolly bolted the Big East for the ACC:

You wonder how a recruiter from Syracuse, just to pick the latest scoundrel, can look a football or basketball recruit in the eye in the coming months and tell him with a straight face to not sell his game-worn jersey for $500, or not to take a free dinner from an alumnus who owns the pizza parlor at the edge of campus, or to decline the $250 handshake from a booster who knows the kid has no means by which to pay his cell phone bill. You wonder how the presidents of universities, right now the biggest hypocrites on the planet, could have the gumption to lecture anybody on the concepts of honoring commitment and having integrity when as a group these days they have precious little, if any.

All of which is a very long way of getting around to the point of this post (and I promise there is a point beyond all this recent recounting): NCAA president Mark Emmert is fighting back. There's not much he can do, of course -- the NCAA has no control over conference realignment, and it never will -- but as responses in the face of fecklessness go, Emmert's was certainly worth mentioning. On Monday, he met with college athletic directors from around the country in Grapevine, Tex., where he delivered a stern lecture on how "embarrassed" administrators should be over the cognitive dissonance conference realignment created. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

“People today have greater doubt, greater concern about what we stand for and why we do what we do,” Emmert said to a packed room of athletic directors and faculty athletics representatives, who have all gathered here for their annual meetings. “And that is a huge problem for us.” [...]

Emmert said the general impression was that administrators only cared about money, they didn't explain why the realignment moves were not only a good thing for their school's bottom line but how that bottom line improvement was inherently a good thing for its hundreds of student-athletes:

“The world’s convinced that’s all we care about…that all this is about money,” he said. “I didn’t read many of us stepping up and saying that this will work really well for student-athletes because we’ll do X, we’ll do Y, it will create more resources, it will help us stabilize our programs.”

“It was all about the deal,” he said.

“The confusion and disruption of the conference realignment adds to, doesn’t detract from, our ability to get these things done,” he said. “Because, candidly, I think we were all embarrassed by some of that behavior, and here’s our chance to show what we really care about.”

We'll see. Frankly, the damage has been done. The NCAA may never again convince the majority of its fans that its higher mission -- "to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount" -- is what the NCAA says it is. Before, the NCAA's problems in driving this message home centered on its governance of revenue sports, how its disciplinary structure seemed antiquated, arbitrary and inconsistent. This is a much more difficult gap to bridge.

Emmert can't tell college athletics directors to stop doing what's best for their schools. But he can ask them to keep the athletes -- and the opinion of college sports' millions of fans -- in mind.

It may be too late to salvage this mess now. Emmert's power is limited to words. But at least those words were the right ones.

Yesterday, as my roommates and I commiserated about the big conference realignment news, my buddy Paul -- who was furious at the idea of losing the Big East tournament in Madison Square Garden -- came up with an anti-realignment idea: Why doesn't the NCAA stop them?

"They need to step in," Paul said. "Someone has to do something about this."

The answer, I quickly pointed out, was that the NCAA had no power to do so. But it actually bears repeating, because I'm not sure how many casual college sports fans realize this fact: You can criticize the NCAA for plenty of things. Widespread conference realignment is not one of them.

Turns out, NCAA president Mark Emmert actually answered this question to Andy Katz yesterday, and his explanation serves as a helpful of the forces at work here:

"I've been talking to commissioners and presidents and helping to try to keep people focused on the picture and reminding people at the end of the day we're talking about student-athletes and I think the institutions are being as thoughtful as they can on this," Emmert said by phone from the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis. "We don't have a formal role in any conference configurations. The presidents have always had that and always will. As a former university president (at Washington) I know that."

"All of the authority in the NCAA comes from the membership," Emmert said. "The members have never given the NCAA the authority over conference configuration and they're unlikely to ever do that. That is an individual institutional decision and they guard that zealously."

In other words, if you're upset about conference realignment, don't blame the NCAA. There is not a big red button Emmert can push. He can't make an angry phone call to set things right. He can't stop a move that would kill a conference or leave a handful of teams flailing in the storm. He really can't do much of anything.

Like the rest of us, Emmert is sitting and watching and hoping everything works out for the best. Sure, he's "talking" with commissioners and presidents, but he's only just talking. The NCAA membership is never going to give the NCAA president control over its individuals' abilities to change leagues. It's just never going to happen.

Like it or not, realignment is a runaway train, and there's no single conductor able to punch the brakes. This is the reality. We might as well get used to it.

The NCAA did not need the Miami situation. The organization has already had a very tough year -- it's just been one major, high-profile scandal after another, and meanwhile the BCS conferences only grow more powerful -- and at each step along the way critics have excoriated it for inconsistent punishment and feckless governance.

The allegations levied at Miami only doubled down on those perceptions. Even worse, former Miami athletic director Paul Dee, who oversaw the program through some of the most obvious years of Nevin Shapiro's existence, was the chairman of the committee on infractions when the committee levied harsh penalties against USC. His condescending tone toward USC in that case -- Dee famously said that "high-profile athletes require high-profile compliance" -- has, to critics, become a pitch-perfect symbol of the NCAA's inability to police itself.

In other words, NCAA president Mark Emmert's job is not an enviable one. He's the face of the organization, the one in charge of explaining the NCAA's beliefs to the public. The questions are only getting more pointed. Emmert appeared on ESPN late last week to discuss the need for reform, and he repeated that belief in an interview with the Los Angeles Times today. But he's also standing by the NCAA's enforcement process -- despite the concerns about Dee's time as the COI chair. From the interview:

The chairman [Dee] was one of nine voices on the committee. He has no more power than anyone else. We look at individual cases on their merits. What happened at Miami has no bearing on USC. I understand it doesn't feel right. We decide cases based on the facts on the ground, and we will continue to do that.

There's a whole lot in the interview, so you should read it all. Emmert is willing to bend on some issues. This, unfortunately, was not one of them.

It's a difficult response to swallow. For years, the Miami athletics department allowed a Ponzi-scheming hanger-on to commit violate just about every amateurism rule in the book, and he did so while he led Miami on the field on Saturdays. Shapiro had his own suite at home games and a players' lounge named after him. If high-profile athletes require high-profile compliance, as Dee said, then he was failing in his job even as he chided other programs for their violations. Emmert would be better off admitting to how regrettable this situation was, and he should be as open to reforming the NCAA committee on infractions as he is the cost-of-attendance scholarship structure.

After all, there's no way to eradicate cheaters in college sports. Whenever there's money to be made or games to be won, people will bend the rules to do so. Giving players an extra $2,000 a year might help lessen players' feeling that they're being exploited by an unfair system. Making sure cheaters know they "can no longer do a cost-benefit analysis of cheating," as Emmert says, may help in deterrence. But as the NCAA has stepped up its enforcement efforts in recent years, it's pulled back the curtain on the widespread rule-breaking at big-time college programs.

No public relations effort is going to solve that. But what Emmert can do is admit where the NCAA needs to get better -- not only in its policies governing memberships, but in the composition of the committees that police those members. It needs to be transparent. It needs to explain to fans the why just as much as the what.

And it needs to be flexible. If it can't do that, it can't change. If it can't change, it can't survive. The NCAA's continued existence is not guaranteed. Incrementalism -- buttressed by a frustrating inability to admit fault -- isn't going to get the job done.

NCAA President Mark Emmert explains why he believes college athletes should be supported with the cost of attendance, but should not be paid for play. He also gives his definition of amateurism and explains which rules are most important to him.

I'm not sure whether this is encouraging or not. At the very least, it's good to know that the NCAA isn't planning on merely sitting around in Indianapolis and letting Texas A&M's move to the SEC spring another six months of conference realignment madness. Sure, that may happen. But at the very least, NCAA president Mark Emmert seems to want a role in the discussion. Even more encouraging is the news that some conference commissioners want Emmert to want a role in the discussion.

From the New York Times's Pete Thamel:

Mark Emmert, the president of the N.C.A.A., reached out to several top college officials Monday, suggesting a meeting to discuss a less cannibalistic and more collegial way to approach conference expansion.

“I think people have asked him to make some phone calls,” Pacific-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said. “He’s doing exactly what he should be doing.” [...] “Those conversations start and stop with that there’s no N.C.A.A. authority on these topics,” Scott said.

Emmert has the support of Scott, ACC commissioner John Swofford, Big East commissioner John Marinatto, and Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, the latter of whom shared a heated phone call with SEC commissioner Mike Slive about A&M's potential move last week, according to the Times. In other words, these commissioners are seeing what's happening and getting visions of Armageddon; there's a lot of "Desolation Row" on these guys' iPods. Rather than stand by and watch the SEC tear the Big 12 apart -- and then react by scraping and clawing for the leftovers -- they'd like Emmert to step in and try to prevent that from happening.

Emmert is in a difficult position. He can try to influence the realignment debate and use his clout, as it were, to bring those rapacious capitalists in the conference commissioner seats to a mutually beneficial conversation. What he can't do, as far as we know, is anything to actually stop realignment from happening. He might be able to organize the process. He could raise the level of decorum involved in the debate. But realignment is really the conferences' business, and if massive changes are going to come -- if Texas A&M really wants to SECede (see what they did there?) -- it's not clear Emmert can do anything to stop them.

This weekend, the Division I Leadership Council moved the NCAA one step closer to the modern era.

According to a release from the NCAA Friday, the council "reached consensus on some aspects of a new men's basketball recruiting model." The release cites the following as the issues the Leadership Council, which heard presentations from two subcommittees on all manner of men's basketball issues, was able to agree on:

• A start date for official visits beginning after the men’s basketball championship in April of the junior year.
• Deregulating the type of communication between coaches and prospects (including text messaging and other forms of electronic communication).
• Allowing unlimited communication after Aug. 1 before the junior year in high school.
• Permitting evaluations at certified nonscholastic events on two weekends in April, with some restrictions.
• Permitting some contact at a prospect’s educational institution in conjunction with an evaluation, with some restrictions and requirements.

The best, or at least most encouraging, of these rules has to do with communication. We've made the arguments for deregulation of text messages and other forms of electronic communication like email and Facebook before, so I won't reprise them here. But the bottom line is that the increase in smartphone use and unlimited text messaging plans has made obsolete the old complaints about coaches deluging recruits with costly texts. Sending a direct message on Twitter, which a recruit is just as likely to see on an alert on his cell phone, is basically the exact same user experience as sending a text. Why regulate one and not the other? Open things up. The kids can handle it, you know?

Individually, each of these rules falls closer to a tweak than a wholesale overhaul. Taken together, though, the direction of these changes is clear. The Leadership Council seems genuinely invested in granting greater access between recruits and coaches. Whether that access comes at AAU tournaments in April -- a time many college coaches have espoused as a potential evaluation addition -- earlier campus visits, greater contact at a prospect's school, or via text-messaging, the general purpose is pretty obvious.

There are still a wide range of issues here. There's the July evaluation period, which the council could not reach consensus on. There's also the idea of NCAA-sponsored summer evaluation camps or tournaments, which it labeled as "aspirational" with "lots to work out." And let's not get into the wide range of problems -- powerful, monied conferences; enforcement changes; cost-of-attendance scholarships, burgeoning fan anger -- facing NCAA president Mark Emmert as he prepares for his president's retreat this week.

The NCAA might not be ready to let coaches talk to recruits year-round. Nor is it ready to totally reconsider its system. But it is beginning to make some serious progress, and that progress continued with the Leadership Council Friday. Incremental though it might be, at least it's a step in the right direction, right?

Could pushing back the women's NCAA tournament by a week bring better exposure to the sport since it would have less overlap with the men's tournament?

On Thursday, that's what the NCAA Division I women's basketball committee announced it would study. Pushing back the tournament could also mean adjusting dates like the start of practice and also for recruiting periods and conference tournaments. So, it's complicated. But the benefits of giving the women's Final Four its own week of the spotlight after the men's champion is crowned could be worth it.

From the NCAA:

NCAA President Mark Emmert will assemble a panel of key stakeholders from the membership to review the study and forward a recommendation.

After reviewing data, survey and research information, the committee cited potential benefits to the championship including less head-to-head competition with other NCAA championships, better attendance, more corporate champion/partner activations, greater overall media exposure and expanding growth opportunities for the game.

Already, there is concern that this idea might not work and actually make things worse, according to USA Today, which spoke to Baylor women's coach Kim Mulkey.

"I wasn't for it when it was initially brought up," Mulkey said. "I think women's basketball fans are going to follow the tournament no matter when it's held.

"If this is trying to attract more fans of men's basketball, why don't they move our season back a week and hold our tournament before the men's? I don't want basketball fans to just turn away once the men's final is held. I'm afraid they'd just move on to the Masters or whatever the next big thing would be."

The study does allow the NCAA to do some outside-the-box thinking while it comes up with a way to help women's basketball progress. It's a question of if not enough people are paying attention to the women because their focus is on the men and whether or not giving the women's tourney it's own week to showcase its athletes and story lines would make a difference.

"As a committee, we want to do what is best for women’s basketball," Monmouth athletic director and committee chair Marilyn McNeil, said in a statement. "If this is the best way of enhancing the championship, the sooner a decision is made, the sooner an implementation date can be established."