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
there is a very simple reason to keep the academic by jt
requirement; it sets up a specific timeframe for when eligibility is concluded. That will be important for setting up rules and parameters for whatever changes take place with any new setup down the line.
The title 9 defense is laughable. You can take offense if you wish, that's your prerogative. Yes, it is something that they will have to work around. No, it will not be a deal breaker like vadbldomer seems to constantly indicate. It's something that the NCAA (and more recently, Notre Dame's president and athletic director) throw out there as a defense, as if they don't already treat different sports and athletes differently. The courts laughed at it, and so should anyone who understands how things work.