Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 3 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I don't have time to stick around||
for an answer, unfortunately, but I'll point out that the athletes are in fact working to pay for their education (unless I'm mistaken and their scholarships aren't dependent on continued participation in their sport).
The argument, to me, is whether it's OK for colleges and the NCAA to agree on the limits on pay in this particular arena. I suspect that if there was a system in place that limited compensation in your field, you would not think it was particularly fair.
The question of whether people will follow non-amateur sports is a different one, but then big-time college sports are not really amateur at the moment, if you think carefully about it. Athletes are receiving a benefit with financial value in return for their participation in a revenue-generating activity.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I also take issue||
with the $40K, $50K or (even worse) $200K figure that gets thrown around in this discussion. (In what other context would you talk about someone's 4-year earnings as a measure of value?)
It totally confuses cost with value, ignores opportunity cost altogether, and finally is a tacit agreement that players are already being paid, and that the only debate is around how much and whether it can legally be capped by a monopolistic organization.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I don't find it particularly surprising||
To be honest, it seems logical that the hypocrisy of "amateurism" in big-time college sports would be in sharpest relief at an institution with high academic standards.
It probably also helps that they're being taught to think critically.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||As long as your build is||
As long as your build is pretty "athletic" you can definitely do well in rugby without being massive. This guy looked fine from the youtube footage.
The only time it really becomes an issue is when you're being asked to defend against a significantly bigger opposite number. Fortunately Jonah Lomus don't come along every day.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||27-23 Michigan||
|23 weeks 5 days ago||On the lam||
It's "on the lam", not "on the lamb", though that is an interesting mental image.
|39 weeks 3 days ago||In the midwest||
In the midwest that's possibly true although Wisconsin is probably rated a cut above them academically. Then they're in a chasing pack with Illinois, Minnesota etc., as above.
Nationally, other than Berkeley which you already mentioned, UCLA, UVa, UNC Chapel Hill and UT Austin would generally be considered to be stronger academically than OSU. Those institutions are typically considered to be U-M's peers among the state flagships.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||Michigan Creative||
You could start here:
There may be more stuff under the "VP for Communications" umbrella. Or you could search the job site:
|42 weeks 1 day ago||U-M web jobs||
Have you looked at U-M jobs? They have a central web development service, and several academic units and research labs have their own web people too.
The University's a pretty good employer, especially if you're in the "continuing business" (job security can be a bit looser if your position is funded by research grants).
|43 weeks 3 days ago||My point||
is not that a college scholarship is a terrible deal (it's obviously not, otherwise some fraction of athletes would do as you suggest and sit out). It's just that it's not as good a deal as some athletes would get under a more market based system. Which is why I compared it to the general student situation, where colleges do not agree to limit the amount of merit aid they give to academically-inclined students.
In fact, when the Ivy League did do something a bit like that, they got taken to court. Kind of "surprising" that the NCAA doesn't suffer the same fate.
You say that you're happy with your decision. That's pretty much the ballgame right there. Is Denard Robinson happy that he wasn't able to make a couple of million dollars from endorsements before taking his chances in the NFL?
By the way, my personal political stance is actually at odds with the "reward the brightest shining stars" philosophy. I just think it's hypocrital in the extreme, with strong class/race undertones, for colleges to make a ton of money out of college athletes, a lot of which they then hand over to athletic directors, coaches and bowl executives, under the banner of "amateurism".
|43 weeks 3 days ago||No||
De Gea can be a long-term great keeper. Howard's fine but he's not going to go there and wait for him to screw up, and I can't see a new manager wanting to mess with that setup in his first couple of months.
Great article on De Gea (and Andy Carroll) here:
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Difference||
You made a rational economic choice to attend college, figuring that your debt would be paid off by your increased earnings (or that it was worth it for the happiness you derived from attending college).
You could alternatively have attended a cheaper college, a less selective college that might have offered you a full ride on academic merit, or not attended college at all.
This rational economic choice is denied to upper-tier college players, who are forced to attend college and be "paid" less than their market value for 1-2 years at the minimum, while suffering the risk of career-ending injury. This is the problem with the shamateurism situation.
(The fact that some people are better off than others and do not have to make the tough choice you had to doesn't really enter into it due to the "no politics" rule.)
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Athletic Directors||
Are "worth it" and apparently they also "should be paid", despite the fact that their job is apparently an audition for the US Senate or similar political bauble (the fact that only a small minority of ADs manage to go this route is irrelevant since the same fact applies to college players with respect to the pro leagues).
I will only listen to pro-shamateurism arguments from people who explain why they don't apply to coaches and ADs.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Moyes||
I could see Moyes doing OK but he's pretty much unproven at managing in the SAF style, i.e., maintaining ruthless order over a very strong lineup and eradicating anyone who gets too big for the dressing room. Moyes has certainly maintained order at Everton but he hasn't had to deal with the issue of getting rid of a Ronaldo, Stam, Ince etc.
He'd at least be worth a go though. Better than a lot of the dross out there.
Unfortunately it would surprise me not one iota if the owners now get on the "6 months to win everything" merry-go-round and trash the club.
|46 weeks 4 days ago||The atmosphere||
and high level of play...
Not sure if serious.
|50 weeks 1 day ago||Bonjour youself||
And with that, I am at the magic threshold of 100 points. What happens now?
EDIT: OH... MY... GOD...
|50 weeks 1 day ago||That's awesome||
I'd never seen that Star Wars episode before. I have to find out more about this "Woody Alien" character.
|50 weeks 1 day ago||Not to be "that guy"||
But jejune doesn't (originally) have anything to do with "childlike", sappily ironic or not. It comes from the Latin for "fasting" and, used in a non-literal sense, means "dull", "insipid", or similar. Used literally it simply means "empty", or possibly "hungry".
I will grant you that it has a recent usage of meaning "something like childlike", because it sounds and looks a bit like "jeune". But when people use it this way they usually have trouble defining exactly what it means, which I think is not unrelated to the fact that there isn't an established historical usage to fall back on. In this case, people are essentially saying "it means what these other recent writers have thought it means".
All words are like this, of course, it's just that when the pool of references is small, meaning is harder to pin down.
|50 weeks 1 day ago||jejune||
That's not what jejune means. People think it means something like "young" or "childlike" because of the closeness to "jeune", but in fact it means something closer to "jaded" or "insipid", which is not what springs to mind when I think of the music of Chantal Goya.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Gold||
Make sure you use solid gold cables. Only way to avoid the corruption of the digital signal that invariably occurs with copper.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Hmm||
You could make that case ("it's the right thing to do but the government has no business doing it") about every single push for equality over the past 200 years.
FWIW, statements that the government is "outrageously intrusive" are essentially political in nature.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||"Neutering" America||
When people say that some cultural shift is "neutering" America, is when I stop paying attention. That way I don't have to sit through the yee-hawing and I'm-so-oppressed bullshit.
Also, no politics.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Math and Econ||
Mathematically, your analysis is correct. However, you are making, at least, the following two assumptions about the ticket buying population in drawing your conclusion:
A) they are rational economic actors
B) they assign no value to holding a season ticket (same seat for each game, I'm not even necessarily talking about the year-to-year renewal value)
Neither A) nor B) is supported by the evidence.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||OK, but||
if you're going to make that argument, you have to explain why it's legal for the NCAA to cap salaries, when it's illegal in all the other jobs these students perform.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Not really sure||
why these are two different questions. It's bizarre to me that, when defending the right of the NCAA to cap people's salaries in a way that would be illegal in most other areas, people use the argument that players are already being paid (and more than you might think!). That just seems to me to accept the notion that it's good and right to pay players on the basis of the value they bring to the institution.
As for the "creating more problems than it solves" side of the argument, it's equally plausible to say that the non-revenue athletes are currently "screwing over" the football and basketball players, since they're being paid (a lot, as you point out) to do something which, though it does have value for the institution, is much less significant both in public profile and income terms.
If you think that everyone should be paid the same amount of money regardless of the job they do, I think we pretty quickly run into the "no politics" terminus of this argument.
Finally, the fact that the NCAA "has always limited how much any college athlete may be compensated" is not another question - it's the whole question.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||momo||
The question is not whether players are compensated - obviously they already are (which in fact is an argument against the current shamateurism situation).
The question is why the NCAA is allowed to arbitrarily limit the salaries of players while coaches and athletic directors rake in huge coin.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||There's no need to play around||
Obviously my comment was somewhat strongly worded because I'm very annoyed by the price hikes, and will have to dramatically scale back my attendance at football/basketball games as a result.
Ultimately Brandon will get what he wants: a more homogenous, upper-income crowd.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Without becoming explicitly political||
I believe that telling faithful supporters of U-M athletics for the past 30+ years to GTFO because they happen to work in low-paid public service positions is a pretty sad indicator of the "values" of the current AD.
|2 years 1 week ago||Forget that guy||
There's an upper-income family of four from Grand Rapids that will gladly shell out for good seats.
/END BRANDON TRANSMISSION
|2 years 1 week ago||Key words: "used to"||
The past tense is apt.