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

In addition to the things you describe, it: by IrishJosh24

(1) Touts Swarbrick's 28 years of experience--where have I heard that before?--"advising sports-industry clients," without mentioning who those clients were or the fact that he is right in the middle of the USA Gymnastics scandal.

(2) Claims Swarbrick is "regarded as one of the smartest people in college sports," obviously without a source for the claim.

(3) Oddly claims that federal judges, who have life tenure and are members of an institution protected by Article III of the Constitution that often handles America's largest businesses as well as actions by Congress and the President, are too "protective of their own institutional legitimacy" to "destabilize college sports."

(4) Questions not only whether we can compete in the current environment, but whether we should even be trying because, apparently, schools just recently started playing by rules other than those Notre Dame sets for itself.

(5) Describes Fr. Hesburgh as "ambivalent" about football's role at ND but fails to mention the following quote when rationalizing a decision not to strive for football success at the highest levels:

"There is no academic virtue in playing mediocre football and no academic vice in winning a game that by all odds one should lose. . . . There has indeed been a surrender at Notre Dame, but it is a surrender to excellence on all fronts, and in this we hope to rise above ourselves with the help of God."

Apparently he didn't really mean all fronts.