F the NCAA

[ousdahl]

potd

[ousdahl]

speaking of ducks…i recently read about some new research into the female reproductive biology of those ducks with the long, corkscrew penises

turns out, the duck vagina has a series of “dead end” pockets, making it so regardless of how rapey the drake is, the hen still has the choice of whether or not she cooperates to allow for successful copulation

wtf, is this duck a republican senator from Missouri or something?

[pdub]

speaking of ducks…i recently read about some new research into the female reproductive biology of those ducks with the long, corkscrew penises

turns out, the duck vagina has a series of “dead end” pockets, making it so regardless of how rapey the drake is, the hen still has the choice of whether or not she cooperates to allow for successful copulation

wtf, is this duck a republican senator from Missouri or something?

A+ post.

[ousdahl]

legitimate.

[Cascadia]

This thread is approaching JDavis territory.

[CrimsonNBlue]

This thread is approaching JDavis territory.

Considering all of the other stuff going on here that surrounds the gist of the thread, pretty accurate.

[NDballer13]

Still better than JimWest territory.

[hoopla]

* Major recruiting/revenue/expansion driver for the universities

that's the one that bothers me the most, the persistence of the "student-athlete" facade. if they're getting paid, they're employees and not students. pay tuition if you want to take some classes, but stop pretending the relationship is something that it isn't. ah, but acknowledging that would damage the brand. so even though the construct of free room and board no longer makes sense, the organization needs to be able to tie the players to the university somehow in order for their target audience to feel connected and keep consuming. and i think they rightly fear the consumption would diminish rapidly if that connection was to the players as employees, given that the consumers are already paying tens-of-thousands to attend said university for an education not a sports team, presumably. it is intellectually dishonest. if it quacks like a duck, its a duck, but we're all OK pretending its the same as it always has been on the one hand, but different where its convenient?

[pdub]

This.
It goes back to the original post of the thread.
It’s professionalism. Why take classes? Why have student sections? Why be associated with campus or the university at all?

Just go all in, be the KC Phogushers you know you want to be.

[hoopla]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

[jfish26]

This.
It goes back to the original post of the thread.
It’s professionalism. Why take classes? Why have student sections? Why be associated with campus or the university at all?

Just go all in, be the KC Phogushers you know you want to be.

Or, just go all in, and ban from campus any kid with a job. Any kid who accepts money in exchange for goods or services or, yes, name/image/likeness. That’ll clean things up nicely, yes sir.

There just is not an ethically or logically sound reason athletes should be treated differently from other students, on this point. The existence of an extra zero (or two, or three) doesn’t justify different treatment.

[hoopla]

fish, c'mon tho, you're arguing a different, earlier point. i was late to the party. i'm not offended by the kids getting paid, its the right thing to do.

[CrimsonNBlue]

most colleges and universities are nonprofit entities. state universities and community colleges are usually (if not always) nonprofit. many private colleges are also nonprofit. why on earth do they need such "revenue expansion"? and, more importantly, should what they do w/ that revenue matter to individuals that have contributed considerable amounts to them?

do i need to break out the charts that show how it 1. hasn't lowered tuition for students; or 2. increased salaries for professors? in fact, both are going in the wrong directions at staggering rates as colleges and boards of regents nationally seem to have bought in to this idea that revenue/bottom line is the primary concern rather than quality of the product or staff satisfaction.

one example (thanks, Google): in 1969, 80 percent of professors in America were tenured or on a tenure track. today, around 75 percent of faculty are adjuncts or not on the tenure track. this means a higher rate of university faculty has less job security, and receives lower pay and fewer-to-no benefits.

at this point, we're used to conglomerates taking over and ever-expanding their product markets, but its beyond me why universities would join in that, or be the biggest landowners in the state, or holders of hedge funds worth billions from endowments, etc.

feels like we've lost the plot, but maybe its just me and pdub...

Most athletic departments are for-profit companies that operate separately from the universities. Been that way for a long time.

There’s merit to your overall argument, but it’s a distinction, nonetheless.

[CrimsonNBlue]

A discussion about how fucked up higher education is from a systemic and economic perspective is a very worthy one, but probably belongs on a different board and would take a vast amount of research, data, talking points, etc.

[pdub]

The players are being recruited and paid by wealthy individuals ( yes, the people in the collectives are wealthy ) to play at the schools.
It is different than any 'kid with a job', obviously, or there wouldn't be this kind of discussion about it.

You want professional basketball in college towns.
I want college basketball.

You want KC Phogushers.
I want KU Jayhawks.

[NDballer13]

I don't disagree with your points about non-profits only concerning themselves with profits, I've often wondered the same thing myself. And not just about regarding NIL stuff, but more so why are CEO's of charities and such taking such high salaries while at the same time saying everything they do is for the kids. Which, you could lump the NCAA into that. They are so concerned about the bottom line and paying their president 3 million dollars while saying the people that drive the revenue shouldn't get any of it.

I don't think that's what fish and pdub are arguing. They seem to be going back and forth over the "professionalism" aspect. And I have to agree with fish on that one. Is it just athletes that shouldn't be associated with campus of universities at all? By his logic, a music major who works as a server at a local restaurant shouldn't be allowed in on campus studios because they are getting paid, thus making them professional. Or a science major not being allowed in campus labs because they work part time at a retail store. Music and science department facilites should be reserved for amatuers and amatuers only.

If the Salty Iguana wants to pay Jalen Wilson $10k to promote their Taco Tuesday specials, why should he be treated differently than the average student that works there when it comes to university association?

[pdub]

"If the Salty Iguana wants to pay Jalen Wilson $10k to promote their Taco Tuesday specials"

This isn't what is happening.
Nigel Pack just got 800,000 dollars.
Nigel Pack.

[twocoach]

"If the Salty Iguana wants to pay Jalen Wilson $10k to promote their Taco Tuesday specials"

This isn't what is happening.
Nigel Pack just got 800,000 dollars.
Nigel Pack.

And that changes nothing involving the sport. You seem to just be mad that a bunch of college kids are getting paid more than you think they are worth.

[Cascadia]

I think it’s probably closer to “getting paid more than he does”

[NDballer13]

"If the Salty Iguana wants to pay Jalen Wilson $10k to promote their Taco Tuesday specials"

This isn't what is happening.
Nigel Pack just got 800,000 dollars.
Nigel Pack.

The amount is irrelevent to the point.