We are scuffling with a major infrastructure breakdown here (and what kind of a country have we become when the normally reliable bootleg hotspots are all down?)
« A Times Boost For The Geithner Plan | Main | GM And Chrysler - Yea Or Nay? »
The comments to this entry are closed.
PUK--I passed your idea on and youre name is now in lights..
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=2321
Posted by: clarice | March 29, 2009 at 03:55 PM
That was fun, Clarice!
Posted by: centralcal | March 29, 2009 at 04:16 PM
I'm watching Michigan State on its way to overpowering Louisville and make the NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Final Four. There are plenty of advertisers hawking their wares. I imagine they pay the big money to CBS for the ad time. Announcers get paid, the vendors get paid, the schools get their cut. Most of the talented atheletes on the floor won't score big NBA contracts. Would someone please remind me why it would hurt the integrity of the sport to pay the athletes, who appear to be the only ones not getting a cut?
I know one technical tax reason. By promoting the hypocrisy that big time college basketball amd footbal are related to the educational purposes of the institutions, the institutions avoid paying income tax on receipts from these events. I say recognize this for what it is, that is, a business. If there are athletes who, while pursuing their job as a professional college footbal or basketball player, want to get a regular degree, that's fine. But spare me the nonsense that paying the athletes would take away the spirit of the sport. If paying the athletes would debase this event, why does paying everyone leveraging the talents of the athletes not debase the spirit.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 04:30 PM
George Will says the stimulus is unconstitutional. LUN So who has standing to sue?
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Jane, Section 1607 of the Act allows a State legislature, by concurrent resolution, to accept funds under the stimulus bill if the Governor doesn't accept the funds. Has any Governor actually not accepted the funds and been overriden by his or her State legislature. If so, I think the Governor would have standing to sue as the top official of the State on grounds that 1607 is an unconstitutional infringement on the States' role in our federal system. Some might refer to this as a Tenth Amendment violation. I also wonder whether a business who could show economic harm through a competitor receiving stimulus monies might have standing.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 05:01 PM
See LUN for the stimulus bill. Put in 1607 in your computer's Find function and you will see what I think is an outrageous infringement on State sovereignty.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 05:03 PM
20 Minutes to tip-off.
Last night caught the last 30 minutes of the New Yorker/NYTimes Adam Gopnik on CSPAN discussing his new book on Lincoln and Darwin.
In concluding remarks, (since no one in the audience brought it up), he said that when he spoke at LA or Seattle, the audiences rabidly brought up the so very interesting question of whether Obama was similar to Lincoln. Gopnik then answered his own question in the affirmative, going off on a riff about how Obama's campaign speech, (where he said he had never heard Reverend Wright say all those vile things) was the greatest speech that he (Gopnik) had heard in his entire adult life and was exactly Lincolnesque in how he successfully equated Wright's diatribes to right wing extremists, thus masterfully defusing the situation. Gopnik said he thought that speech was far too nuanced and subtle for most American's to appreciate, so that he (Gopnik) was amazed when the American people actually wound up being smart enough to understand it and eventually elect Obama. So, if any of you were imagining that Obama was an incompetent America hating fraud, please be advised instead that Obama is the reborn quintessence of "Honest Abe", and if you think otherwise you are simply unsophisticated rubes too stupid to know any better.
Posted by: daddy | March 29, 2009 at 05:07 PM
I also wonder whether an individual or firm subject to the regulatory aspects of the bill (such as the health records provisions) might have standing to sue. Of course, a court might say that the regulatory provisions are not an unconstitutional delegation of power, even if the appropriations provisions were, and might not strike down the whole bill but might leave the regulatory provisions intact.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 05:08 PM
TC,
It would be a very fun lawsuit to watch. I wonder if you could get a stay while it was pending? And what Court would you bring it in?
I bet we can talk Clarice into doing it.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 05:16 PM
Ann,
Are you around? And are you watching our Tiger?
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 05:17 PM
By the way, the health regulatory provisions about which I was speaking are contained in Title XIII of Division A of the stimulus bill (the one titled Health Information Technology).
Sorry, Michigan State, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Connecticut fans. 'Nova is going all the way.
I am now officially on the run ala Dr. Richard Kimble in The Fugitive. I suspect my above prediction didn't sit well with some JOmers. :-))
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 05:18 PM
Jane, it would be great if a Federal District Judge had the guts to try to rein in our elected officials' attempts to expand the bureaucratic State. See LUN for an over decade old Cato Institute analysis. It has been an ongoing battle to fight the tyranny of bureaucracy.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 05:25 PM
... Obama's campaign speech, (where he said he had never heard Reverend Wright say all those vile things) ...
Obama's speech is refuted by Obama himself. In "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts the first time he went to Trinity and describes in detail the sermon that day ... the first part of which contains "the white man is evil" stuff.
It is of course shocking that our MSM didn't ask him about this contradiction. Maybe none of them ever read the book. Yeah, right. I imagine lots of them have it enshrined in a gold-framed glass case, as the best work of literature the world has ever seen.
Posted by: PD | March 29, 2009 at 05:45 PM
George Will says the stimulus is unconstitutional. LUN So who has standing to sue?
Why, Jane, that's easy. Everyone who has standing to sue over not producing the birth certificate.
Posted by: PaulL | March 29, 2009 at 05:52 PM
It's starting:
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.
Wagoner's departure is one of the remarkable strings attached to a new aid package the administration plans to offer GM.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Clarice,
What would be good/, is a series of visits to the great religious symbols of the world,with an appropriate picture.Throwing a coin down the well in Tehran and making a wish,agonising over which shoes to wear in the Golden Mosque.
Personally,I like a trip to Lourdes,"They got a cure for sex addiction"
Posted by: PeterUK | March 29, 2009 at 06:11 PM
Would someone please remind me why it would hurt the integrity of the sport to pay the athletes, who appear to be the only ones not getting a cut?
They get a free college education.
That's about $25,000/year at least.
At a school like USC, it's about $60,000/year.
The schools use much of the money to pay for the athletes of non-revenue generating sports to get scholarships as well.
I find the idea of paying college athletes appalling.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 06:20 PM
HEH_PUK, I'll pass that on..
PI think I should just give the artist your addy.
Jane--Not I but there are conservative legal foundations that might.
Posted by: clarice | March 29, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I suspect my above prediction didn't sit well with some JOmers. :-))
You are welcome to your delusions, TC. :-)
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 06:27 PM
P'UK,
What would she do on a visit to The Blarney Stone, tell the truth?
Posted by: daddy | March 29, 2009 at 06:29 PM
Hey Jane,
I am watching with my eyes closed. ;)
Buried in the bunker at 14...it's nerve racking. Go TIGER...Wow amazing!
Posted by: Ann | March 29, 2009 at 06:38 PM
MayBee, if funds from the revenue generating sports are being used to fund scholarships for others, how does that argue against paying the athletes of the revenue generating sports?
I respect your opinion that you find the idea of paying college atheletes appalling, MayBee. What I find appalling is adults obtaining economic benefits from the hard work of these athletes. The Ford Motor Company, CBS, the gambling establishments and all the other folks profiting from college football and basketball are, in one way or another, getting paid.
Now, you mention a free college education. Perhaps I am behind the times, but I was under the impression that at many big time schools, if an athlete gets injured and can't play, the scholarship goes away. Perhaps I am wrong. However, even if the scholarship doesn't go away, the fact of the matter is that many of the athletes, if not most, spend so much time on the basketball and football that they simply don't have the time to prepare themsleves for after school life adequately. And please spare me the stories about Archie Griffin and Byron White and Alan Page and Bill Bradley and others who combine top of the line competitive college football and basketball with top notch academic scholarship. They are remarkable people; you shouldn't be making policy on the basis of them.
There are coaches who apparently take care of their players. My understanding is that folks such as John Thompson and Bobby Knight did take an interest in the post playing days of their players. But those situations are all too infrequent. What appalls me, MayBee, is that adults make money of college students without focusing more on providing those students with the skills neede to make their way in the world after their playing days are over.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 06:39 PM
I'm really glad that Gopnick adds his name to the list of leftwing "intellectuals," like Gary Wills, who got a thrill up their leg over that steaming pile of B.S. Zero left on the electorate's doorstep last winter. Just like Lincoln...except without the soaring phrases, powerful reasoning and timeless relevance.
The more of these clowns who come forward with their confessions now, the more ammunition we will have when the full Chauncey Gardner is revealed to all in about, oh, six months.
P.S. Everyone should read the delightful challenge">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klavan29-2009mar29,0,5456892.story">challenge to liberal wimps by Andrew Klavan in today's LA Slimes.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 29, 2009 at 06:43 PM
Daddy,
The Blarney Stone,"You want me to hang down there and kis it? Gee that takes me back to Bill's first words".
Posted by: PeterUK | March 29, 2009 at 06:45 PM
Ann,
O'Hair is likable enough - even tho he has a bad name. Tiger hasn't closed the deal and he's had a chance or two. And it's not as if Elliott's fav will win if our Tiger doesn't. I bet it gets dark before we see the end of this.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 06:51 PM
You should start a movement, Thomas. You have a great passion.
Would you pay all college athletes, or just those playing football and basketball?
As the daughter of a man who went to college on a football scholarship, ran track, and managed to go on to lead a successful, non-athletic based life, I simply disagree with you.
He never would have gone to college without it.
On the other hand, my sister swam without a scholarship (or pay!) on a Big 10 Team and managed to graduate with high honors. So did my cousin, who ran track under the same circumstances.
So, I just don't see a reason for what you are proposing. But as I said, you seem to have the passion to push the idea with someone more influential than me.
And your Final 4 prediction is what is truly appalling. ;-O.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 06:52 PM
LOL LOL LOL P'UK
That rivals MayBee's "Bai LIng is bat-shit crazy" as the best comment of the month!
Posted by: daddy | March 29, 2009 at 06:54 PM
Oh, and I don't want to forget my other cousin in the band. She traveled to all the football and basketball games, entertained the crowds, practiced almost year-round-- no pay, no scholarship, big success!
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 06:55 PM
Geez Ann, did you see that putt?
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Jane,
Do you want to take that back? Yessssssss!
Go Tiger!!!
It is so great watching him come back.
Posted by: Ann | March 29, 2009 at 07:01 PM
Everyone needs to read Fresh Air's link.
Thanks FA. What a howler!
Dagnabit...now he is in the rough, Jane.
I can't watch, you tell me what happens. :)
Posted by: Ann | March 29, 2009 at 07:06 PM
ps. I don't think athletes lose their scholarships anymore when they are injured.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 07:08 PM
Watch - O'hair is in the water and Tiger just hit the perfect shot.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 07:13 PM
I listened to the 'Nova-American 1st round game while driving around aimlessly, MayBee. It was a great game, and I decided I would become a 'Nova fan for this year's March Madness.
I have to admit, MayBee, that I was being somewhat intentionally provocative by simply saying "payment." I wanted to provoke a reaction. I'm glad you provided your perspective. I think the appropriate "payment" would be the NCAA increasing its focus on what all schools with big time sports teams are doing for their athletes. I acknowledge that the athlete has a responsibility in this and many take the route of your father and take advantage of the opportunity the scholarship provided.
Who said you aren't influential, MayBee? It sounds as if you are pretty informed on this. I know overall you seem to think the current system works fine, but there must be some areas you think could be improved in college sports (other than my March Madness pick).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 07:13 PM
if an athlete gets injured and can't play, the scholarship goes away.
Depends on the school and how much they want the athlete. The son of a friend chose to pitch at Stanford instead of ASU (and others) because Stanford offered a full, four-year ride even if he got injured. ASU did not, and they have the reputation for minimizing the cost of their non-productive athletes.
Posted by: DrJ | March 29, 2009 at 07:17 PM
Iran trying to smuggle rockets into Gaza? See LUN. Can't be! Wasn't Obama going to usher in a new spirit of international cooperation?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Those sneaky Iranians probably did that knowing Obama was busy firing the CEO of GM and probably wouldn't notice.
Posted by: PaulL | March 29, 2009 at 07:21 PM
There have been proposals to pay athletes a stipend, say $500 a month or something. The reasons are (1) athletes have little to no time outside of class and sports for jobs; (2) often come from modest backgrounds; and (3) most importantly, to remove, at least partially, the temptation to take illegal gifts from alumni.
I would submit that stipends are unworkable because they are targeted chiefly at minority stars of basketball and football, not the other ethnicities or sports, and certainly not women athletes. Implementing a two-tier system just creates another problem to be solved with...more money.
P.S. I think a lot of people would be shocked by the gifts big-time donors shall we say make available to star athletes. (Not this audience, obviously, but the people who voted for Zero, certainly.)
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 29, 2009 at 07:22 PM
You must excuse my appalling grammar. I was on a roll.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 07:25 PM
With mayo?
Posted by: boris | March 29, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Butter!
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 07:42 PM
He's back Ann!
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 07:52 PM
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES TIGER TIGER TIGER TIGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are back! Jane :)
Posted by: Ann | March 29, 2009 at 07:52 PM
HOW FUN WAS THAT!!!!!
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 07:54 PM
Appalled would be appalled at our continuing use of a variant of his stage name, MayBee.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 29, 2009 at 07:55 PM
LOL, look at the time stamp on our posts Jane.
Incredible Fun! Wow, we needed some good news.
Doing the Tiger dance. (Don't ask, not pretty, but so much fun!)
Where's Elliott and Stephanie?
Posted by: Ann | March 29, 2009 at 08:02 PM
Those who are talking about home schooling may want to take another look at the Give Act (Better known as the Communists take control of the US act)
In the comments on 3-29-09 at 2:42. home schooler obligations are noted
Posted by: Pagar | March 29, 2009 at 08:06 PM
I bet that Elliott is playing golf somewhere. Harumph! Maybe with Stephanie.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 08:07 PM
We appear to have chased everyone off.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Boston College cancels Ayers speaking engagement.
Posted by: Rocco | March 29, 2009 at 08:31 PM
"I bet that Elliott is playing golf somewhere. Harumph! Maybe with Stephanie."
No.he'll be using golf clubs.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 29, 2009 at 08:38 PM
I'd say that one is bad PUK, but there is no telling what you would do with that.
Posted by: Jane | March 29, 2009 at 08:44 PM
Elliot is trying to calculate which day was my birthday this month.
(Miles Davis, John Coltrane in ""Joy Spring")
Dinner, bye.
Posted by: mel | March 29, 2009 at 08:47 PM
Is there any way they could convice me to ever buy a GM car again, even a black one?
Posted by: Extraneus | March 29, 2009 at 08:57 PM
Good news from your link, Rocco.
I thought we we getting on a roll, when I found that:
But than I heard that Obama who apparently is not even capable of finding his own birth certificate is firing the person in charge at GM. Of course, no union workers were injured in this attack on American industry.
Posted by: Pagar | March 29, 2009 at 09:04 PM
Just funnin' Mz Jane,tryin' to kep the thread a'goin'.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 29, 2009 at 09:08 PM
Sorry, the link got left off the GM post.
Posted by: Pagar | March 29, 2009 at 09:20 PM
OT,
I wish kim would come back! It's not like her to be gone this long. I do remember her being gone for a week once last year on a road trip, though.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 29, 2009 at 09:28 PM
"Is there any way they could convince me to ever buy a GM car again, even a black one?"
Worker Unit Extraneous,
Your ZombieMotors 2010 Widowmaker DeLuxe will be delivered to Worker Barracks Block 3487 on June 12, 2017. Your first payment of $1,257.43 is due by the 10th proximate (2009). The contract of permitted usage assigned to this vehicle allows its operation for up to 12 hours per day between 4PM and 4AM, 3 days per week.
The state authorizes you to enjoy your vehicle to the full extent expressed within Worker Group 26,384 by the five co-owners (as determined by the appointed commissar).
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 29, 2009 at 09:38 PM
For those of you who are tired of fluff news coverage and need some serious coverage of hard news, read away.
Posted by: PD | March 29, 2009 at 09:41 PM
PD, your comment apropo the link is hilarious. But I can't help noticing in the picture that under her 'toned' biceps, her arms and hands look kind of stringy and weird.
Posted by: MaryD | March 29, 2009 at 09:50 PM
PD, I had no idea the Los Angeles Times was still around.
Posted by: Pagar | March 29, 2009 at 09:53 PM
Let the market determine who gets paid, and in what amounts. Make the schools compete with one another for labor, just like anyone else.
Maybee, how would you like it if the employers of whatever skills you possess, were allowed to conspire with one another to determine what they would pay you. Even going so far as to make it illegal for you to cash in on whatever celebrity you earned for yourself in your field.
What if there was physical danger--college football players have been killed pursuing their careers--in your field? Would you be comforted that your labor was being taxed to subsidize other people working in less dangerous, but related, jobs?
How would you feel if you were a young, black male working for free, prohibited from selling your autograph or working as a greeter at a pizza parlor of used car lot, while the people who were denying you opportunities were prosperous middle aged white men?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 29, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Yes, I hope Kim is all right. It is spring break in most places. Let's hope she ran off to have fun.
Posted by: clarice | March 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Yes, I hope Kim is all right.
Clarice,
I saw a post by Kim a day or so ago at another site. Might have been Wattsupwiththat.
Still cracking wise.
And now my wife and I are off to the coast for the week to celebrate her birthday. Have fun.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | March 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM
How would you feel if you were a young, black male working for free, prohibited from selling your autograph or working as a greeter at a pizza parlor of used car lot, while the people who were denying you opportunities were prosperous middle aged white men?
Conflicted. I mean, at the beginning of the season, I would have thought that it was clearly a racist system that had to be overturned. But now that the coolest President ever has an NCAA bracket, and his brother-in-law is one of the dudes making a ton of money working for the cartel that keeps young black male basketball players from making the kind of money young Russian women tennis players can make - I'd think it was pretty fly.
Posted by: bgates | March 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM
HOW FUN WAS THAT!!!!!
It was quite impressive, even on tape delay. (I note, completely gratuitously, that the world's number one ranked player still has not beaten the world's number two ranked player in competition this year).
Posted by: Elliott | March 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Yeah, bgates. And why have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and numerous other race hustlers not attacked the racist NCAA cartel that exploits young black men?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 29, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Patrick, I was just wondering that myself. I guess I can buy the race pimps staying away, because I think the current system is pretty popular in the black community, but you'd think some lefty true believer would be willing to point out the false consciousness here.
Posted by: bgates | March 29, 2009 at 10:24 PM
The thing that really sent me over the edge on this issue was some years back reading about a coach of a major college basketball team (might have been Duke, UNC, Kentucky) signing a contract with a shoe manufacturer. Essentially, he received millions of dollars in exchange for having all his players wear that company's shoes. The players got nothing except a pair of sneakers.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
PRS-
'Cause they GOT their tickets.
Gotta problem wid dat?
Posted by: mel | March 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I had no idea the Los Angeles Times was still around.
Well, with stories like that, I'm sure revenues will up sharply soon.
Posted by: PD | March 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM
mel, my sweetie got me some fresh cheese curds yesterday. Regarding the flavor, the label says "Farmer's Cheese Curds."
Good enough for me.
Posted by: PD | March 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Perhaps all students should be paid to attend college. For the university is clearly only able to be a university by having a student body, and it is only able to gain reputation by having excellent students. Why should excellent students make old white professors money by being forced to purchase their published text books and attend their seminars?
From here on, universities should be research institutions that pay students to attend and play sports.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM
"Would someone please remind me why it would hurt the integrity of the sport to pay the athletes, who appear to be the only ones not getting a cut?
They get a free college education."
Still laughing.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | March 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Any athlete wishing to forgo the slavery of the NCAA sports programs may do so. They may then audition for the professional sports team of their choosing when they meet the qualifying age. Or they may go into whatever field they'd like without their funded college education.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM
So Rick Waggoner follows AIG's previous CEO, no not Hank Greenberg, out the door
and some poor schlub will be recruited to take his place, and of course, with all the
mandates, GM will continue to fail, and we'll continue to subsidize them, the Trabant with a MidWest flavor, Geithner mumbled incoherently about something, McCain dropped in, and was noncommittal
about everything; by the way how are the brackets doing, Obama's picks how did they work out, that good huh.
Posted by: narciso | March 29, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Happy Birthday, PB!!
Posted by: bad | March 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM
AND, PD!!
Posted by: bad | March 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM
bad-
Your typing skills are killing me, and if daddy sees that, well...
It's still two days off.
Posted by: mel | March 29, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Any athlete wishing to forgo the slavery of the NCAA sports programs may do so.
So monopoly cartels are ok with you since no one is forced to purchase their products? Closed shops are ok with you since a worker is free to go find a job someplace else that does not require union membership? Does something have to rise to slavery before it registers as exploitive and unjust?
Posted by: jimmyk | March 29, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Happy Birthday, Mel!!
Posted by: bad | March 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Perhaps all students should be paid to attend college.
No, you're giving up too easily on your original idea of freezing coaches' salaries and endorsements, ticket prices, tv viewership, and network ad revenue at the levels they had when your father went to school.
Posted by: bgates | March 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM
bad-
So far off, you couldn't hit the side of a barn with a handful of gravel, leaning on the d*(& thing.
Sorta, still two days off.
PD-
Sour cream and chive curds are my favorite. I almost shot the Habenero out places that would have required emergency surgery, after the milk = cocaine routine.
Busy week, night all.
Posted by: mel | March 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Toxic asset buyout made simple.
http://benbittrolff.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-flaw-in-geithner-plan-explained.html
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Yes, jimmyk. I love watching college sports mostly because the athletes are being exploited.
I really hate the idea of anyone doing anything just for competition, a chance at a better future, and pride anymore.
People need to learn that cash in your pocket now is the only good motivator.
We should probably start paying some of those high school kids, too. Have you ever seen what the Boosters can pull in on a good night at the snack shack? Oy!
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 11:22 PM
No, you're giving up too easily on your original idea of freezing coaches' salaries and endorsements, ticket prices, tv viewership, and network ad revenue at the levels they had when your father went to school.
Why attack me? You guys are so clearly right I am surely just a tiny voice in the wilderness, here.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM
The biggest doofuses are the guys playing for the service academies.
No pay for their athletics AND they still have to commit to military service at the end.
IDIOTS!
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Sweet Dreams, Mel
Posted by: bad | March 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Yes, jimmyk. I love watching college sports mostly because the athletes are being exploited.
You know, if you actually presented a serious argument at some point, someone might take your view a bit more seriously. As far as I can tell, all you've done is say that you find paying athletes "appalling" and then make a lot of sarcastic remarks.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Maybee, you're being dishonest by ducking the questions I asked you.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Tapper is saying he'll announce the automaker plan by Obama at midnight on his blog.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I'm being dishonest?
Ok. Let's try to figure out why college football and basketball are so much more profitable than college baseball.
Then let's decide if it would be better or worse for everyone if we created farm leagues for those two sports, where players could make $10,000-$25,000/ year (as they do in the minors) with no education.
You obviously feel very certain about how this should all be. I'm not stopping you from making your pitch to someone who matters. I don't.
Posted by: MayBee | March 29, 2009 at 11:44 PM
You matter to me Maybee. ♥
Posted by: bad | March 29, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I'm simply asking you to answer some easy questions. And, you're refusing to confront those questions, instead changing the issue. That's dishonest.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 29, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Why attack me?
Because your absurd strawman comments, like suggesting someone who agrees with us would call cadets and middies "idiots", really make you sound like an asshole.
Posted by: bgates | March 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Have to kind of agree with Maybee here.
If we're for a real free market then we should abolish anti trust exemptions for the pros and let whomever can make it try out.
If a college age athlete doesn't want to bounce a ball around for a free education while people much better qualified for college either pay their own way or have their slot taken by the athlete then they can start their own semi pro league and set their own salary.
Free markets don't mean piggy backing on something someone else built with impunity.
Poor black youth are already warped with the asinine cultural idea that their success is more likely to come from a flamboyant dunk shot than working their tails off in school. Paying college athletes just makes the distortion worse. You'd be better off paying them to read some Tom Sowell, Shelby Steele and Walter Williams.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | March 29, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Tom Sowell and Walter Williams agree with me; the NCAA is a cartel that expoits young black men, IR.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 30, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Because your absurd strawman comments, like suggesting someone who agrees with us would call cadets and middies "idiots", really make you sound like an asshole.
My goodness.
Ok. They aren't idiots. They are being severely exploited, according to you guys.
But I'm out. You guys are too passionate about this.
Posted by: MayBee | March 30, 2009 at 12:40 AM
We're not passionate. We're logical. And, you're ducking that logic. You should be ashamed of of ducking the challenge.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM