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
It can get much worse. by WilfordBrimley
It would make the equivalent of a college football Gini coefficient go from 0.5 to 1.0.
The inequality problem isn't with the Alabama's and Clemson's (who doesn't even recruit anywhere near the level at which Bama does and only a bit better than ND does). It's calcifying the top 10 to 15 programs to a level that would be absurd even compared to now. There is still a pretty good amount of flux in that 5 to 40 range year-over-year in college football. That would pretty much disappear.