On Monday, Emmert announced he would hold a two-day retreat with about 50 school presidents or chancellors to discuss the future of Division I sports. The meeting is scheduled for Aug. 9-10.
Among topics on the agenda are how to maintain the governing body's policy on amateurism, a definition that allows schools to restrict how athletes are compensated for playing sports. That's not all Emmert wants to talk about.
"How do we look at issues around the integrity of the collegiate model? Is there a sense that we need stronger investigative tools? Is there a sense that we need a more understood and more comprehensive penalty structure?" Emmert said in a statement. "How do we look at the embedding of athletics in a way that sends clear messages to institutions before student-athletes even arrive on campus that there is an expectation of academic success?"
But it's the pay-for-play issue that will certainly get the most attention.
It has been debated publicly for decades, and has gained fresh traction in the wake of high-profile infractions cases including that of reigning Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton and former Heisman winner Reggie Bush.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany brought up the issue paying athletes at recent spring meetings, though a formal proposal for NCAA membership consideration could still be several years away. Athletic scholarships currently cover tuition, fees, room, board and books. Not covered are transportation, clothing, laundry, entertainment and incidentals.
Purdue basketball coach Matt Painter does not believe the solution is simply giving athletes cash.
"Just handing them money so they can get new Timberlands or whatever, I don't think that's right," Painter said during a conference call with reporters Monday. "I don't want to lose the amateurism. They are getting their education paid for and a lot of people say that's what the NBA is for. If you want to get paid, go to the NBA."
That's Emmert's position, too.
In May, when the NCAA conducted a mock infractions hearing for reporters, he questioned whether paying athletes was even economically viable. Title IX legislation, Emmert noted, would mean women's athletes would have to be paid on par with men's.
Emmert also questioned whether a school would pay a starting quarterback more than a kicker or a backup quarterback, then ended by saying this: "There is a model for that, it's called professional sports, and I love them. But that's not what college sports is about."