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
Go vs: no-go is differing opinions... by DavidAddison
But I definitely disagree on a couple of your points.
It would seem clear that internally sports are charged full value for their scholarships, because non-athlete need based money comes from different pools of money entirely, including donor based scholarship funds and presumably some small percentage of the endowment.
And I totally disagree that most scholarship athletes outside of football and basketball would’ve been admitted to ND anyway. The quality of students being turned away is amazing, and we are not just talking about bookworm dorks. I’m sure many of our athletes are smart and good or even great students. Did they all average 33-35 on ACT?