New NCAA Presidenct Mark Emmert talks shop

NCAA President Mark Emmert sat down in Indianapolis with a nine reporters from a number of different media outlets. (Gary Parrish and Jeff Goodman were there.)

He had some interesting things to say if you go through and read what those two guys wrote.

• He emphasized the point that he has no control over the NBA's one-and-done rule. Its a labor issue between the NBA players and owners.
• He said that he is not concerned about a group of super-conferences breaking away from the NCAA, as many feared might happen during Expansionocaplypse.
  
• He also emphasized that he likes the current NCAA Tournament model and thinks they will "stick with it for a great while."
  

But his most interesting comments, at least in regards to the current college hoops landscape, involved the punishment of college coaches for lying to the NCAA. From Parrish's blog:

Emmert repeatedly explained that he could not discuss specific cases, and that no two cases are alike. When asked, however, if a college coach who lies should be held to the same standard as a student-athlete who lies, Emmert said, "We certainly want to uphold the standards for coaches -- who are the teacher and the authority figure in that relationship -- to at least the same standards that we hold our students."

He answered that question having been reminded that former Oklahoma State receiver Dez Bryant was suspended all of last season after lying to the NCAA.

"All these situations are case specific, so you can't easily or appropriately generalize," Emmert added. "But I want to make sure that we're creating an environment where coaches and universities are appropriately rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad behavior. I know that sounds silly and trite. But we do need to have a situation where when coaches ... are committing major infractions the penalties will be significant enough that they serve as a discouragement to that kind of behavior."

Personally, I'm torn on the issue, and I can easily see both sides of the argument.

Its unfair to hold student-athletes -- 18 and 19 and 20 year old kids -- to a higher standard than the adults, the coaches, that are expected to be mentoring and teaching these young men. How can it be fair to have a lesser punishment for the people that are supposed to be setting an example than for the kids that need the example set for them?

On the other hand, punishing a coach for lying by suspending him for a season or for the postseason does less harm to the coach than it does to the player. Like it or not, players are going to pick a school based on which coach they want to play for. Whether it is because they like the system that coach runs, they think that coach can help them win a league or a national title, or because they think the coach offers them the best opportunity to become a pro, the overwhelming majority of college basketball recruits aren't going to pick a school because they have a great economics program.

Here's my proposition: allow the NCAA to fine coaches in this situation.

Emmert commented that all but 14 programs nationally lost money in their athletics department. Instead of Tennessee docking Bruce Pearl's pay, allow the NCAA to fine him and use that money to help schools with a smaller athletics budget pay for things like travel to NCAA tournament events. By hitting the coaches in the wallet, it creates a serious incentive for coaches to be honest and truthful when question -- and creates an incentive against cheating to the point that they need to lie -- without punishing the players that those coaches have convinced to play for them.

It likely wouldn't be all that much when it gets spread out over all of the NCAA programs, but as anyone struggling in this economy can attest, every little bit helps.