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

So what? by mocopdx

A private company deemed him worthy of $1.4MM which is now entirely legal. How can you compare that to some Ponzi scheme douche lord hiring prostitutes for 17 year olds?

Again- how is this different from a player being a star for Kentucky basketball and signing a million dollar shoe deal before playing a single minute for the Sacramento Kings? In both scenarios, a company has decided to gamble that an athlete with huge potential is worth striking a deal on the ground floor of their next level.

If it doesn’t work out and Ewers doesn’t pan out, I think the marketing company will be just fine, and no one will be harmed in the process.