[CTcard]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all. 
...

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution. 

...  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.   

There are several different possible interests involved. For the health of universities involved, both individually and collectively, I think this would be the best system. And, that is probably the interest I hold highest, so would love to see such an evolution.

But, I don't see how it's going to happen. The current situation already would "let the NFL create its minor league teams" but I don't see that it has any interest in doing so. Of course, nominally, universities could also go ahead and be universities and simply drop big time sports - the only thing stopping them from doing so is intense alumni and political pressure.
So, why would the NFL go to the expense of creating their own minor league system when they have one for free now?

And, there certainly would be downsides to the baseball model.

For the players, opting for the minor leagues would likely lead to a tougher life for many (I think). The lives of minor league baseball players who never make the majors (about 90% of those drafted) is not all that great. Minor leaguers don't make much money, and when they are washed up at 25 many don't have much exposure to either education or anything else from which to make a life.
However, I have only heard anecdotal stories. I don't know if there are any studies that look at the long term welfare of Div 1 football players who don't make the pros versus minor league ball players who don't make the majors. I would guess the former are better off, but don't know that to be true.

A second loser would be the rest of the sports programs at universities. I suspect that a minor football league that would suck up a good fraction of the best players might lead the popularity of NCAA football to go the way of NCAA baseball - which would both solve and create a ton of problems. Any significant drop in popularity would lead to a significant drop in income, which presumably would lead to a massive cutting of the most expensive/least politically powerful NCAA sports.


Still, it's a trade-off I think I would take and I like to imagine in my trips to fantasy-land.

[CTcard]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all. 
...

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution. 

...  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.   

There are several different possible interests involved. For the health of universities involved, both individually and collectively, I think this would be the best system. And, that is probably the interest I hold highest, so would love to see such an evolution.

But, I don't see how it's going to happen. The current situation already would "let the NFL create its minor league teams" but I don't see that it has any interest in doing so. Of course, nominally, universities could also go ahead and be universities and simply drop big time sports - the only thing stopping them from doing so is intense alumni and political pressure.
So, why would the NFL go to the expense of creating their own minor league system when they have one for free now?

And, there certainly would be downsides to the baseball model.

For the players, opting for the minor leagues would likely lead to a tougher life for many (I think). The lives of minor league baseball players who never make the majors (about 90% of those drafted) is not all that great. Minor leaguers don't make much money, and when they are washed up at 25 many don't have much exposure to either education or anything else from which to make a life.
However, I have only heard anecdotal stories. I don't know if there are any studies that look at the long term welfare of Div 1 football players who don't make the pros versus minor league ball players who don't make the majors. I would guess the former are better off, but don't know that to be true.

A second loser would be the rest of the sports programs at universities. I suspect that a minor football league that would suck up a good fraction of the best players might lead the popularity of NCAA football to go the way of NCAA baseball - which would both solve and create a ton of problems. Any significant drop in popularity would lead to a significant drop in income, which presumably would lead to a massive cutting of the most expensive/least politically powerful NCAA sports.


Still, it's a trade-off I think I would take and I like to imagine in my trips to fantasy-land.

[martyup]

When the author criticizes Shaw's comments in part due to the fact that he makes a multimillion dollar salary, he fails to mention that Shaw himself played football for Stanford and was, therefore, one of the "exploited" athletes.  Cannot his coaching salary be considered fruit of his opportunity as a Stanford football player?  Considered thusly, his salary actually supports Shaw's position against paying student athletes.

[martyup]

When the author criticizes Shaw's comments in part due to the fact that he makes a multimillion dollar salary, he fails to mention that Shaw himself played football for Stanford and was, therefore, one of the "exploited" athletes.  Cannot his coaching salary be considered fruit of his opportunity as a Stanford football player?  Considered thusly, his salary actually supports Shaw's position against paying student athletes.

[djones]

Students covet, sacrifice and grind to attend Stanford why? Don't get me wrong, the campus is very pretty and the weather fantastic but their motive, I believe is principally because matriculating will optimize their opportunity for self actualization, for some, and for financial gain also for many, perhaps most.

Parents covet, sacrifice and pay for their children to attend Stanford and they dream of both the personal growth as well as the financial success perceived to be associated with it. In fact, they'd sacrifice more and pay more for the privilege if required.

Some elements of the current system are foul, no doubt. There should be stipend, there should be life time scholarships, there should be post graduate access and scholarships because student athletes have a much tougher road to hoe than do their peers and also because they give so much in the way of alumni satisfaction and also financial gain for the university. If those elements were in place right now this constituent, at least, would be very comfortable with the equity of it all.

[djones]

Students covet, sacrifice and grind to attend Stanford why? Don't get me wrong, the campus is very pretty and the weather fantastic but their motive, I believe is principally because matriculating will optimize their opportunity for self actualization, for some, and for financial gain also for many, perhaps most.

Parents covet, sacrifice and pay for their children to attend Stanford and they dream of both the personal growth as well as the financial success perceived to be associated with it. In fact, they'd sacrifice more and pay more for the privilege if required.

Some elements of the current system are foul, no doubt. There should be stipend, there should be life time scholarships, there should be post graduate access and scholarships because student athletes have a much tougher road to hoe than do their peers and also because they give so much in the way of alumni satisfaction and also financial gain for the university. If those elements were in place right now this constituent, at least, would be very comfortable with the equity of it all.

[Redrum]

I want to say to 71Bear:  Well played, sir!  Mission accomplished.  Report back to Moscow Centre for your next assignment. EMOTICON

As for Harbaugh's supposedly outrageous bathroom/shower:  Two things:  The bathroom will not always be worthy of ridicule.  Live by free-market principles / Die by free-market principles.  The departed Harbaugh is STILL racking up ROI for Stanford.  If that bathroom/shower-- not a cent of which came out of the university or the funding of players' needs-- made him a happy and more efficient camper,  that's fine with most of us.  $50K is gnat sweat compared to what he accomplished.  The free market invested $$$ and got $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in return over a period that, we hope, ain't over yet.  Second thing: some day Hruby will give in and do renovations to his own home.  Then, when it comes time to redo the master bath,  he'll discover just how expensive  any reno is.  Might make anyone going through that project less judgmental on other people's costs.

But, as I said earlier.  I accept that those who think the Stanford model is still workable are on the wrong side of history. Not because they are "wrong" necessarily,  but because the other, bigger forces are moving this.  Hell, many major programs already have one foot out the door.    Wrong side because they're probably gonna lose much or most of what made Stanford football fun and something we were proud of.  New wrongs will replace the current wrongs and the wheel will turn on.  Brave new world.

On a complete tangent,  I have broken my self-imposed embargo and utilized the rating feature.
I'm not a big fan of it.  Positive votes are fine. The negative votes are my main peeve.  In general, I think one should express in a post exactly why a person they disagree with is wrong.  Or agree to disagree.  I think some posts are downrated because they express issue viewpoints people dislike.  My contrarian view is that the only time negative or "disrespect votes"  should be used is when the poster is being a dick.  That is worth a down vote.  I didn't see any real dickishness in this thread, and so used some positive respect votes to take the sting out of some respect down-ratings.

[Redrum]

I want to say to 71Bear:  Well played, sir!  Mission accomplished.  Report back to Moscow Centre for your next assignment. EMOTICON

As for Harbaugh's supposedly outrageous bathroom/shower:  Two things:  The bathroom will not always be worthy of ridicule.  Live by free-market principles / Die by free-market principles.  The departed Harbaugh is STILL racking up ROI for Stanford.  If that bathroom/shower-- not a cent of which came out of the university or the funding of players' needs-- made him a happy and more efficient camper,  that's fine with most of us.  $50K is gnat sweat compared to what he accomplished.  The free market invested $$$ and got $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in return over a period that, we hope, ain't over yet.  Second thing: some day Hruby will give in and do renovations to his own home.  Then, when it comes time to redo the master bath,  he'll discover just how expensive  any reno is.  Might make anyone going through that project less judgmental on other people's costs.

But, as I said earlier.  I accept that those who think the Stanford model is still workable are on the wrong side of history. Not because they are "wrong" necessarily,  but because the other, bigger forces are moving this.  Hell, many major programs already have one foot out the door.    Wrong side because they're probably gonna lose much or most of what made Stanford football fun and something we were proud of.  New wrongs will replace the current wrongs and the wheel will turn on.  Brave new world.

On a complete tangent,  I have broken my self-imposed embargo and utilized the rating feature.
I'm not a big fan of it.  Positive votes are fine. The negative votes are my main peeve.  In general, I think one should express in a post exactly why a person they disagree with is wrong.  Or agree to disagree.  I think some posts are downrated because they express issue viewpoints people dislike.  My contrarian view is that the only time negative or "disrespect votes"  should be used is when the poster is being a dick.  That is worth a down vote.  I didn't see any real dickishness in this thread, and so used some positive respect votes to take the sting out of some respect down-ratings.

[washingtonismoney]

I have broken my self-imposed embargo and utilized the rating feature.
I'm not a big fan of it.  Positive votes are fine. The negative votes are my main peeve.  In general, I think one should express in a post exactly why a person they disagree with is wrong.  Or agree to disagree.  I think some posts are downrated because they express issue viewpoints people dislike.  My contrarian view is that the only time negative or "disrespect votes"  should be used is when the poster is being a dick.  That is worth a down vote.  I didn't see any real dickishness in this thread, and so used some positive respect votes to take the sting out of some respect down-ratings.

This is pretty much my view of the rating function, and I pretty often balance out the scales in the manner you describe.

[washingtonismoney]

I have broken my self-imposed embargo and utilized the rating feature.
I'm not a big fan of it.  Positive votes are fine. The negative votes are my main peeve.  In general, I think one should express in a post exactly why a person they disagree with is wrong.  Or agree to disagree.  I think some posts are downrated because they express issue viewpoints people dislike.  My contrarian view is that the only time negative or "disrespect votes"  should be used is when the poster is being a dick.  That is worth a down vote.  I didn't see any real dickishness in this thread, and so used some positive respect votes to take the sting out of some respect down-ratings.

This is pretty much my view of the rating function, and I pretty often balance out the scales in the manner you describe.

[71Bear]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

[71Bear]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

[81alum]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

71,
I have been an admire of yours for quite some time now.  I always enjoyed your posts and like having thoughtful outsiders around this board--it adds a level of reality and prevents this place from being simply so much rah-rah jingoism.  The blog you linked, however, was filled with so much invective and adolescent sarcasm that I could not understand why you recommended it.  It seemed out of character for your normally rational and even handed demeanor.  We may have room to disagree on the substance, too, but I think a lot of the negative reaction is based on the quality of that particular blog--less than it is based on the underlying controversy, or on other things that blogger may have written, and even still less on you.  There just was a revulsion to its style.  That is how I read it, anyway.

[81alum]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

71,
I have been an admire of yours for quite some time now.  I always enjoyed your posts and like having thoughtful outsiders around this board--it adds a level of reality and prevents this place from being simply so much rah-rah jingoism.  The blog you linked, however, was filled with so much invective and adolescent sarcasm that I could not understand why you recommended it.  It seemed out of character for your normally rational and even handed demeanor.  We may have room to disagree on the substance, too, but I think a lot of the negative reaction is based on the quality of that particular blog--less than it is based on the underlying controversy, or on other things that blogger may have written, and even still less on you.  There just was a revulsion to its style.  That is how I read it, anyway.

[yvonne]

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

The plus/minus system is designed to reflect what the community thinks of a particular poster. There is another feature called karma, but with that, members just randomly give or take points from the other members, not to the poster's post. I think that is an even worse indicator of the community perception.

[yvonne]

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

The plus/minus system is designed to reflect what the community thinks of a particular poster. There is another feature called karma, but with that, members just randomly give or take points from the other members, not to the poster's post. I think that is an even worse indicator of the community perception.

[CTcard]

[quote author=71Bear link=topic=10269.msg93233#msg93233 date=1406674837]
That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts. 

The plus/minus system is designed to reflect what the community thinks of a particular poster.
[/quote]

Somehow I am rather amused that the plus/minus system seems to give me lots of plusses for pithy posts making a pun over some spelling error but generally ignores my lengthy, heavily researched, impassioned posts about some football or OT issue.


But I'm easily amused.

[CTcard]

[quote author=71Bear link=topic=10269.msg93233#msg93233 date=1406674837]
That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts. 

The plus/minus system is designed to reflect what the community thinks of a particular poster.
[/quote]

Somehow I am rather amused that the plus/minus system seems to give me lots of plusses for pithy posts making a pun over some spelling error but generally ignores my lengthy, heavily researched, impassioned posts about some football or OT issue.


But I'm easily amused.

[jacketree]

Oh man, I thought the plus/minus system was designed to make us feel young again.  Preschool young.  Of course in preschool I stabbed the girl next to me in the forehead with the business end of a pair of scissors.  You've all been warned.






and in my defense......

a) Who gives a table full of preschoolers sharpies anyway?
b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

[jacketree]

Oh man, I thought the plus/minus system was designed to make us feel young again.  Preschool young.  Of course in preschool I stabbed the girl next to me in the forehead with the business end of a pair of scissors.  You've all been warned.






and in my defense......

a) Who gives a table full of preschoolers sharpies anyway?
b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

[CowboyIndian]

b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

You are such a pup! I could condone your reaction if she'd stolen your gluepot.

[CowboyIndian]

b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

You are such a pup! I could condone your reaction if she'd stolen your gluepot.

[71Bear]

Fair enough, 81...

[71Bear]

Fair enough, 81...

[yvonne]

Somehow I am rather amused that the plus/minus system seems to give me lots of plusses for pithy posts making a pun over some spelling error but generally ignores my lengthy, heavily researched, impassioned posts about some football or OT issue.


But I'm easily amused.

You make a good point. Positives seem to be given if something's pithy or cute, not necessarily whether something's insightful. Nevertheless, I think it's more useful to see a community member's score as an aggregate of what people think of his or her posts than by having members randomly giving karma to one another. I just can't see someone deciding for example, that they didn't like a joke Garvin told at a meetup, and then giving him a demerit on the board.

[yvonne]

Somehow I am rather amused that the plus/minus system seems to give me lots of plusses for pithy posts making a pun over some spelling error but generally ignores my lengthy, heavily researched, impassioned posts about some football or OT issue.


But I'm easily amused.

You make a good point. Positives seem to be given if something's pithy or cute, not necessarily whether something's insightful. Nevertheless, I think it's more useful to see a community member's score as an aggregate of what people think of his or her posts than by having members randomly giving karma to one another. I just can't see someone deciding for example, that they didn't like a joke Garvin told at a meetup, and then giving him a demerit on the board.

[CornFed]

I don't know, but I give Spiny Norman an upvote frequently simply because his moniker tickles my Monty Python fancy!

[CornFed]

I don't know, but I give Spiny Norman an upvote frequently simply because his moniker tickles my Monty Python fancy!

[VFRing98]

Redrum, fair enough on the bathroom. "Ridicule" might be the wrong word. I find the amount of $ that is spent on college athletic facilities obscene for a variety of reasons. Replace "ridicule" with "obscenity".

Having just come back to the board after a couple years, I find the ratings system...interesting. I note that my posts are almost in the double-digit negative territory. The image of a reader downvoting my posts made me chuckle. It's all a little mob-rulish, no?

[VFRing98]

Redrum, fair enough on the bathroom. "Ridicule" might be the wrong word. I find the amount of $ that is spent on college athletic facilities obscene for a variety of reasons. Replace "ridicule" with "obscenity".

Having just come back to the board after a couple years, I find the ratings system...interesting. I note that my posts are almost in the double-digit negative territory. The image of a reader downvoting my posts made me chuckle. It's all a little mob-rulish, no?

[pefloresjr]

I like the up/down votes.  It would be foolish to assign any real meaning to the votes.  However, there are times that I agree or disagree with a post but don't have the time or anything important to add to the discussion.  I use the votes to participate in the debate with silent approval/disapproval.  It makes me feel somewhat powerful, judging from the void of the internet.  ;) 

I agree that humor is most likely to be up-voted, but strong, evidence-based comments get the most support.  For instance, Terry is not particularly humorous on this board (even though he has a sparkling personality in person) but his posts are so often on point and supported by evidence that his posts receive a lot of votes.  (I owe you a beer at the next meet up for calling you out Terry!)  So count me as one of the members who enjoys the voting system.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I like the up/down votes.  It would be foolish to assign any real meaning to the votes.  However, there are times that I agree or disagree with a post but don't have the time or anything important to add to the discussion.  I use the votes to participate in the debate with silent approval/disapproval.  It makes me feel somewhat powerful, judging from the void of the internet.  ;) 

I agree that humor is most likely to be up-voted, but strong, evidence-based comments get the most support.  For instance, Terry is not particularly humorous on this board (even though he has a sparkling personality in person) but his posts are so often on point and supported by evidence that his posts receive a lot of votes.  (I owe you a beer at the next meet up for calling you out Terry!)  So count me as one of the members who enjoys the voting system.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[BostonCard]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

I up voted your post... just because.

Let's face it, an up vote can mean a lot of things.  It can be a nod of agreement (what you are experiencing); it can be approval of a pithy one-liner; it can be a way to acknowledge a poster's thoughtful post even whilst disagreeing with them (unfortunately too rare).  But (and I don't really need to tell you this), the system is hardly worth the electrons it is sent on.  I'm sure your self-worth and willingness to post your views is not affected a lick by the expected up/down voting.  Hell, you might even wear your down votes as a badge of honor at BI.

As for your main point... I am all for student-athlete welfare, including health and disability benefits (especially for contact sports) that extend beyond athlete's playing days, greater rights (for example, guaranteed four year scholarships, transfers without penalty, etc.) and protections for students.  But I still believe in the idea of student athletes: someone who is a student first and an athlete second.  Such a person ought to be a student primarily and an athlete in their "spare time", not an employee/athlete.

BC

[BostonCard]

Redrum...

Re: the plus/minus system...

My posts blasting the AD at UC always generate pluses and while my criticisms of LSJU always generate minuses.  That tells me more about the people who are "plus/minusing" than it does about the quality of the posts.  In other words, the system is not really serving its intended purpose (at least, I don't think so).

By the way, you might be interested to know that I posted this same topic at BI and received a total of two responses, both critical of my opinion and supportive of Shaw.  This tells me that college sports fans of both schools are unwilling to face the coming storm.  And, of course, it also tells me that I can always count on a more robust discussion of controversial topics here. 

P.S.  Putin sends his regards.....

I up voted your post... just because.

Let's face it, an up vote can mean a lot of things.  It can be a nod of agreement (what you are experiencing); it can be approval of a pithy one-liner; it can be a way to acknowledge a poster's thoughtful post even whilst disagreeing with them (unfortunately too rare).  But (and I don't really need to tell you this), the system is hardly worth the electrons it is sent on.  I'm sure your self-worth and willingness to post your views is not affected a lick by the expected up/down voting.  Hell, you might even wear your down votes as a badge of honor at BI.

As for your main point... I am all for student-athlete welfare, including health and disability benefits (especially for contact sports) that extend beyond athlete's playing days, greater rights (for example, guaranteed four year scholarships, transfers without penalty, etc.) and protections for students.  But I still believe in the idea of student athletes: someone who is a student first and an athlete second.  Such a person ought to be a student primarily and an athlete in their "spare time", not an employee/athlete.

BC

[jacketree]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=10269.msg93243#msg93243 date=1406686743]
b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

You are such a pup! I could condone your reaction if she'd stolen your gluepot.
[/quote]

Now that you mention it, we often ate the glue....not sure what form it came in.  Lipstick-like or paste?  All I remember from the entire episode was theft, blinding 3 year old rage, forehead blood, screaming, Mom coming to school, and being kicked out of Young World Preschool forevah.  I'm sure this is somewhere on my PERMANENT RECORD.

Childhood sucked. Top Ten school-age humiliation from the way back machine include:

1. That X-Acto knife incident in art class.
2. Pulling out Mrs. Anderson's colostomy bag by mistake. Kindergarten I think.
3. Not making it to the toilet. Kindergarten I know.
4. Using the girl's restroom by mistake because they were backward on the other side of school. Never lived that down.
5. Standing outside in the rain all morning because I was late and afraid to knock on the door.
6. Somehow agreeing to marry Marla Wicker during a tetherball game.  But I won!  Wait, what's going on here....
7. Being the only student left in the classroom when Mrs. Kennedy walked around the corner without her shirt on. (How the hell is that my fault? You are the person walking around naked.  1969 for you....)
8. Any random dodge ball game between 2nd and 4th grade. Then I figured it out.
9. Junior high school. All of it.
10. The unraveling of those shitty marching band pants during halftime.

And turn it up to 11. Senior Prom. All of it.

[jacketree]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=10269.msg93243#msg93243 date=1406686743]
b) She stole my gluestick!!!!

You are such a pup! I could condone your reaction if she'd stolen your gluepot.
[/quote]

Now that you mention it, we often ate the glue....not sure what form it came in.  Lipstick-like or paste?  All I remember from the entire episode was theft, blinding 3 year old rage, forehead blood, screaming, Mom coming to school, and being kicked out of Young World Preschool forevah.  I'm sure this is somewhere on my PERMANENT RECORD.

Childhood sucked. Top Ten school-age humiliation from the way back machine include:

1. That X-Acto knife incident in art class.
2. Pulling out Mrs. Anderson's colostomy bag by mistake. Kindergarten I think.
3. Not making it to the toilet. Kindergarten I know.
4. Using the girl's restroom by mistake because they were backward on the other side of school. Never lived that down.
5. Standing outside in the rain all morning because I was late and afraid to knock on the door.
6. Somehow agreeing to marry Marla Wicker during a tetherball game.  But I won!  Wait, what's going on here....
7. Being the only student left in the classroom when Mrs. Kennedy walked around the corner without her shirt on. (How the hell is that my fault? You are the person walking around naked.  1969 for you....)
8. Any random dodge ball game between 2nd and 4th grade. Then I figured it out.
9. Junior high school. All of it.
10. The unraveling of those shitty marching band pants during halftime.

And turn it up to 11. Senior Prom. All of it.

[Nan3cy]

Wow, Jacketree, after that childhood I'm extremely impressed that you had the courage to have children yourself... (unless it was a plot to pay it -- "it" being the pain --  forward).

[Nan3cy]

Wow, Jacketree, after that childhood I'm extremely impressed that you had the courage to have children yourself... (unless it was a plot to pay it -- "it" being the pain --  forward).

[teejers1]

1.  I can't believe people pay any attention to +/- votes or up/downs or whatever they're called.  Let me just say that I hate all you guys and think you're idiots, so go bugger yourself!

2.  I don't have energy to rehash all the reasons why the "pay the players what they're worth as reflected in TV revenues" is just SUCH A CROCK OF $Hit!  So I'll go back to my oft-used example:  if Johnny Manziel were tearing it up with the College Station Cougars of the NFL D-League, no one would give a crap about him or pay for any of his time or autographs.  The value proposition is generated BECAUSE THE ATHLETES ARE PLAYING AT UNIVERSITIES THAT HAVE PASSIONATE FAN BASES.  Once you realize/appreciate that, then it is perfectly acceptable for those universities to "set the rules" for athletes who choose to play in that arena (no one is forcing them to do so, btw).  Doesn't mean the rules can't be tweaked (I'd cap coaching salaries, probably give athletes a nominal stipend for spending money, and distribute TV $$ to universities as a whole and not just ADs).

3.  CTC, generally agree with your thoughtful posts; however, I completely DO NOT BUY that "college sports would suffer" if the best football players eschewed college and went to NFL D League.  To use the hoops example:  if every one-and-doner (i.e., Kentucky's starting five) on every college team this past season instead went to the NBA D-League, do you think the NCAA tournament would be any less popular?  Of course not!  That's because the value proposition is in the college system.  That's what drives the passion/support/$$, not the individuals wearing the unis.  To be sure, better players are more appreciated by the fan bases, but if the better players all bolted for the professional developmental ranks, college sports would be just fine.  And you know what, it might even be better.

4.  The key is to get the Universities across the land to recognize this and put the pressure on NFL to establish its own developmental league.  We know this won't happen - but it would be so awesome if it did - even if it meant shutting down college football nationwide for a season or two.  And THAT's why we are stuck with a broken system.

[teejers1]

1.  I can't believe people pay any attention to +/- votes or up/downs or whatever they're called.  Let me just say that I hate all you guys and think you're idiots, so go bugger yourself!

2.  I don't have energy to rehash all the reasons why the "pay the players what they're worth as reflected in TV revenues" is just SUCH A CROCK OF $Hit!  So I'll go back to my oft-used example:  if Johnny Manziel were tearing it up with the College Station Cougars of the NFL D-League, no one would give a crap about him or pay for any of his time or autographs.  The value proposition is generated BECAUSE THE ATHLETES ARE PLAYING AT UNIVERSITIES THAT HAVE PASSIONATE FAN BASES.  Once you realize/appreciate that, then it is perfectly acceptable for those universities to "set the rules" for athletes who choose to play in that arena (no one is forcing them to do so, btw).  Doesn't mean the rules can't be tweaked (I'd cap coaching salaries, probably give athletes a nominal stipend for spending money, and distribute TV $$ to universities as a whole and not just ADs).

3.  CTC, generally agree with your thoughtful posts; however, I completely DO NOT BUY that "college sports would suffer" if the best football players eschewed college and went to NFL D League.  To use the hoops example:  if every one-and-doner (i.e., Kentucky's starting five) on every college team this past season instead went to the NBA D-League, do you think the NCAA tournament would be any less popular?  Of course not!  That's because the value proposition is in the college system.  That's what drives the passion/support/$$, not the individuals wearing the unis.  To be sure, better players are more appreciated by the fan bases, but if the better players all bolted for the professional developmental ranks, college sports would be just fine.  And you know what, it might even be better.

4.  The key is to get the Universities across the land to recognize this and put the pressure on NFL to establish its own developmental league.  We know this won't happen - but it would be so awesome if it did - even if it meant shutting down college football nationwide for a season or two.  And THAT's why we are stuck with a broken system.