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

Agree with much of what you are saying, but. disagree about by Irishdog80

the amounts being paid. It make sense if athletic departments are willing to make big cuts in their non-revenue sports. A Notre Dame scholarship and maybe an NIL bump from a local or national company for a punter is doable...250K for a punter if you are the best punter in college might work, but not anywhere near that amount if you are at a less than Top 25 school...ranking in football and probably most of the schools--it gets back to replacement value. A team would go with the guy with a 41 yard average instead of the 43 yard average guy demanding 250K. That said, this whole issue is way more complex than just saying "pay the players".