<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Get The Picture]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://blutarsky.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Senator Blutarsky]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blutarsky.wordpress.com/author/blutarsky/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Won&#8217;t get fooled&nbsp;again.]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Mark Emmert continues to flail around in the wake of the NCAA&#8217;s ruling on Camgate.  <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5921518" target="_blank">Now we&#8217;re told</a> that the NCAA &#8220;could&#8221; put emergency legislation in place at its January convention to prevent the situation from recurring.</p>
<p>Nevermind that it&#8217;s hard to see how Emmert&#8217;s group comes to grip with the extenuating circumstances &#8211; <em>&#8220;There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with  that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the  rules that exist today, he could play ball.&#8221;</em> &#8211; any better than it did to begin with, or that it sounds like they&#8217;re going to get bogged down in minutiae &#8211; <em>&#8220;Who is an agent and who is a third party and how do you define that?&#8221;  &#8220;Is it a registered agent? A financial adviser? A  counselor, an uncle, an AAU coach? Who is representing you?&#8221;</em> &#8211; what&#8217;s really telling here is his ultimate justification for the ruling.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230; The new NCAA chief said the backlash against the organization&#8217;s  decision to clear Newton to play would have been worse if he were  prevented from competing based on the evidence against him. At the same  time, he acknowledged it&#8217;s a complex legal and ethical issue.</p>
<p>&#8220;I  was not surprised by the volume or the vitriolic nature, but had we made  a different decision, I do think it would have been worse,&#8221; Emmert  said.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, he was more concerned about incurring Mike Slive&#8217;s wrath than anything else.  And that Slive is satisfied with the decision is proof that the NCAA made the right call.</p>
<p>After all, let&#8217;s not forget that at this point, the ruling has been questioned by several other BCS conference commissioners and that while Emmert thinks he&#8217;s been unfairly subjected to vitriol (nice word, by the way) because his critics lack the knowledge of the facts that he commands &#8211; <em>&#8220;The reason the backlash didn&#8217;t surprise me is that the face of the case  seemed straight forward but we had to deal with the reality of the facts  that were known.&#8221;</em> &#8211; this is a crisis that&#8217;s largely one of the NCAA&#8217;s own making.  His organization chose to interpret &#8220;the rules that exist today&#8221; the way it did and Emmert evidently hasn&#8217;t felt it necessary to share the information gathered through the NCAA&#8217;s investigation with any commissioner besides Slive.</p>
<p>Yeah, this is gonna work out swell next month.</p>
]]></html></oembed>