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

Technically, yes. by No Right Turn on Red

Practically speaking, it looks to be a huge win for the NCAA. The ruling only says the NCAA can’t cap educational expenses not already included in cost of attendance. Many of the stuff listed is already permitted in some form or another, other than the post-eligibility graduate funding and internships.

The NCAA can still cap expenses that aren’t education-related. Seems like an appeal from both sides is likely, as being told once again you’re violating anti-trust laws isn’t good, and the plaintiffs got nothing close to what they wanted.

EDIT: This might belong on Cartier.