Tuesday, July 17, 2012
3-point stance: How should NCAA react?
By Ivan Maisel
1. NCAA president Mark Emmert must feel as if his organization is expected to do something regarding Penn State. But what exactly should that be? It is easy to apply the phrase “lack of institutional control” to what happened in State College. But shouldn’t that phrase apply to gaining a competitive advantage? To blatant disregard for the NCAA rules? I suppose you can contort what Penn State failed to do in the Jerry Sandusky case into a competitive advantage. But that seems too clever by half.
2. The plan for the teams in the Big Ten and the Pac-12 to play each other once a year seemed ambitious from the start, especially squaring the math. The Pac-12 still wanted to play its nine-game conference schedule, and USC and Stanford and Michigan and Michigan State and Purdue still wanted to play Notre Dame every year, and they would play an additional intersectional nonconference game? A great idea, like cold fusion, whose time never came.
3. Greetings from Birmingham, where the 2012 season unofficially kicks off with SEC media days. It is annually a mishmash of artificially created news and annual optimism that resembles journalism like the All-Star Game resembles baseball. The schools understand that the warehouse-sized news conferences in the Wynfrey Hotel ballroom are oversubscribed. The schools now hold small invitation-only interview sessions at the same time as other schools are having their official news conferences, just to give players, coaches and writers a chance to conduct real interviews.