This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Too many teams. First thing I noticed was that Syracuse's by VaDblDmr
president was part of this (along with Gee). Second thing is that revenue would not be evenly distributed. IMO, including haves with have-nots is how we got to where we are right now.
No doubt there are good ideas here, but it will end up being fewer teams than 70 and won't include a Syracuse, for example. That's why the B1G and SEC won't touch this.
I believe the answer is for the networks to directly pay players and take that money out of the money going to the conferences. Or I suppose you could have the conferences pay the players. But either way it needs to not be the individual schools.