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
Agreed that it seems low. by PeteatND
And that’s probably because it’s not a traditional endorsement. Day one of the new NIL system? Let’s not fool ourselves: these arrangements, like almost all that will come in the future, are sweetheart deals with prominent university boosters. In fact, I’ll bet that very, very few of these deals will be made by anyone OTHER than University-affiliated executives/ownership.
None of them will look outwardly absurd; the Universities will insist on that. But the idea that they’ll be decided on through any kind of traditional market mechanism is crazy. Universities will be obligated to line them up with sympathetic donors to stay competitive in recruiting.