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

the money obviously comes from both by jt

the brand and the labor. The question is obviously what a fair split would be.

Notre Dame takes in 77 million in profit. It certainly does not cost ND 85k for 85 athletes, and their costs for food/housing/clothes/etc. are certainly nowhere near what airborneirish would lead people to believe. So is it a fair distribution? Most people seem to agree that it's not, especially for the top end performers. The fact that the schools admit that they're taking from the money making sport to pay for the non revenue sports would seem to indicate that it's not equitable; the football and basketball players derive no benefit from non revenue sports.