Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Fuck The NCAA]-Aiding The Homeless Ruled Improper Benefits Edition

11617181921

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Any of the local lawyer folks want to weigh in?

    This seems to be the ruling they'd expect to hold: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/795/1476/2596428/

    Which, even if so, basically means that it's not up to the NCAA to kick them out, but up to the state colleges to leave the NCAA themselves, I think?

    IANAL, but it looks like it says that Nevada laws in that affected how the NCAA functions in it's disciplinary hearings violated the Commerce Clause, because the only way for the NCAA to comply in a way that promotes it's stated mission of "a fair and level playing field" between its members (whom they are contracted with) would be to change how it conducts it's hearings in ALL cases in all states, which a) could set their own laws that could be incompatible with Nevada's and b) Nevada would be essentially be dictating how the NCAA conducts business outside of Nevada.

    It also violated the Contract Clause, because following it without applying it in other states would violate the NCAA's contractual obligation for "fair and level playing field" among it's members, because it would mean Nevada had different rules in regards to disciplinary hearings compared to everyone else.

    That's probably what they are hoping for with California's law; "If we have to allow it in California, our obligations to fairness between our members, protected by the Contract Clause, means we have to allow it everywhere, and other states could potentially have laws that forbid it/have different criteria incompatible with California's law, and are you, Your Honor, going to say California's laws trumps those of other states within their state?"

    In short, they're going to try to flog Tarkanian, while forgetting the lessons learned from that experience.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The problem of course is that you shouldn't be able to write contracts to avoid state laws.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    FencingsaxMulysaSempronius
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    Polaritie wrote: »
    The problem of course is that you shouldn't be able to write contracts to avoid state laws.

    Contract Clause isn't immutable, but does require the state to prove that the burden from having to annul/modify the violated contracts is worth the public good.

    IIRC the purpose was to stop state legislatures from doing "favors" for influential local citizens by passing a law that essentially was "Deals that are suspiciously identical to the one the honorable So and So made that would cost him a lot of money if he was forced to comply are no longer valid." Assuming they didn't explicitly name the deal in question, of course. Apparently happened enough while the Articles of Confederation were in place that they needed a specific line in the Constitution for it.

    That Nevada case also makes it sound like the NCAA's best strategy is to limit the initial lawsuit in regards to CA's public schools, since (according to the citations in it) a state law that affects the contracts agreed to by an entity of that state is held to a much higher standard than those that would affect contracts between private individuals.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    So I’m an OSU player who wants to make money with OSU super fan, LA resident and businessman Lebron- this lets me do that even though I go to school in Ohio, right?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So I’m an OSU player who wants to make money with OSU super fan, LA resident and businessman Lebron- this lets me do that even though I go to school in Ohio, right?

    No, sadly - the law only applies to college players in California. That said, if the OSU fan base even starts to think this could impact recruiting - expect to see the Ohio government put their own version through in record time.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FencingsaxVishNubschussMan in the MistsTrajan45LoisLaneHeffling
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Got it thanks

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Part of me wants CA schools to pull out of the NCAA.

    And then EA puts out a college football video game featuring only CA schools.

    Just for the hilarity of it.

    Gnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsMulysaSempronius
  • NiryaNirya Registered User regular


    Literally the one good thing Chip Kelly has done this year.

    t70pctuqq2uv.png
    3DS: 2981-5304-3227
    AngelHedgieCaptain InertiaTicaldfjamMagellMvrckOghulkTrajan45
  • Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Registered User regular
    Nirya wrote: »


    Literally the one good thing Chip Kelly has done this year.

    I mean, they did beat Wazzu...

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Part of me wants CA schools to pull out of the NCAA.

    And then EA puts out a college football video game featuring only CA schools.

    Just for the hilarity of it.

    I fully expect that EA will file amicus briefs in whatever lawsuit the NCAA brings on the side of California, in part because they want to bring back two lucrative games, in part because they've never forgotten the multimillion dollar fucking they got thanks to the NCAA.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Ticaldfjam
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Also, with regards to the NCAA’s claims of a "fair and level playing field", CA has an easy out there - show the mountains of evidence showing that the NCAA fails miserably at it, and in fact privileges specific schools. Because if you're claiming you need a law rejected to maintain a "fair and level playing field", you should have to prove that you are actually doing that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Fencingsax
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Also, with regards to the NCAA’s claims of a "fair and level playing field", CA has an easy out there - show the mountains of evidence showing that the NCAA fails miserably at it, and in fact privileges specific schools. Because if you're claiming you need a law rejected to maintain a "fair and level playing field", you should have to prove that you are actually doing that.

    As satisfying as it would be, I think that would be self-defeating. Unless "Public College" means something different in California, California *itself*, or at least the part of it that runs their state colleges, had made an agreement with the NCAA to follow their rules in return for a level playing field. This was one of the things that bit Nevada in their case: because two of the colleges that would have been affected were state colleges that are, under Nevada law, part of the state government, Nevada was essentially trying to change the terms of their contract with the NCAA through the legislature instead of the courts like anyone else who wasn't lucky enough to be a sovereign entity would have to do.

    If California starts to argue that the Contract Clause wasn't violated because the NCAA has already failed to provide a level playing field, California would, in essence, be admitting in court that they passed a law to change the nature of a contract they agreed to because they didn't like it, but at the same time didn't want to fight the terms in court, i.e. the exact sort of thing the Contract Clause was written to prevent in the first place.

    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    I'm not much of a law guy, but I'd be surprised if you aren't allowed to argue that the other entity in a contract isn't upholding their end of the bargain.

    For example, I remember that one time a videogame company (Activision?) had the sole rights to make games based on Star trek, and they sued Star trek for making few and/or bad movies and shows which they argued did not hold up their end of the bargain

  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited October 1
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I'm not much of a law guy, but I'd be surprised if you aren't allowed to argue that the other entity in a contract isn't upholding their end of the bargain.

    For example, I remember that one time a videogame company (Activision?) had the sole rights to make games based on Star trek, and they sued Star trek for making few and/or bad movies and shows which they argued did not hold up their end of the bargain

    Oh sure... if this was a contract dispute, and not a legal challenge to an existing law.

    But California taking the argument that the NCAA violating their contract with (a part of) California made it OK to pass this law is essentially admitting that California passed the law to change the terms because they didn't want to go the normal route of suing the NCAA for violating the contract and force them to renegotiate instead.

    ...and I don't think essentially saying that the law was attempt to make an end run around of the judicial system to weasel out of a bad deal is a good idea in front of the judge that's going to decide whether said law violated the clause of the Constitution that explicitly forbids that.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited October 1
    A better trip up to use, IMO, would be to get the NCAA to have to answer why it's necessary for collegiate athletes to not get any form of monetary payment for playing to ensure the fair playing field they're suppose to promote, but it's not necessary for coaching salaries or the $ spent towards athletics departments to be regulated to do that.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    RMS OceanicFencingsaxMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusMagellHeffling
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I'm not much of a law guy, but I'd be surprised if you aren't allowed to argue that the other entity in a contract isn't upholding their end of the bargain.

    For example, I remember that one time a videogame company (Activision?) had the sole rights to make games based on Star trek, and they sued Star trek for making few and/or bad movies and shows which they argued did not hold up their end of the bargain

    Oh sure... if this was a contract dispute, and not a legal challenge to an existing law.

    But California taking the argument that the NCAA violating their contract with (a part of) California made it OK to pass this law is essentially admitting that California passed the law to change the terms because they didn't want to go the normal route of suing the NCAA for violating the contract and force them to renegotiate instead.

    ...and I don't think essentially saying that the law was attempt to make an end run around of the judicial system to weasel out of a bad deal is a good idea in front of the judge that's going to decide whether said law violated the clause of the Constitution that explicitly forbids that.

    A large part of why that argument worked in Miller was that everyone, their brother, and their dog knew that the reason that Nevada passed the law in question was in response to Jerry Tarkanian's loss at SCOTUS in '88. The push to allow students to own their own likeness has a much different background (for one, the NCAA lost the court case involved) - so I'm thinking that a "well, that's the deal" argument is going to play differently.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I'm not much of a law guy, but I'd be surprised if you aren't allowed to argue that the other entity in a contract isn't upholding their end of the bargain.

    For example, I remember that one time a videogame company (Activision?) had the sole rights to make games based on Star trek, and they sued Star trek for making few and/or bad movies and shows which they argued did not hold up their end of the bargain

    Oh sure... if this was a contract dispute, and not a legal challenge to an existing law.

    But California taking the argument that the NCAA violating their contract with (a part of) California made it OK to pass this law is essentially admitting that California passed the law to change the terms because they didn't want to go the normal route of suing the NCAA for violating the contract and force them to renegotiate instead.

    ...and I don't think essentially saying that the law was attempt to make an end run around of the judicial system to weasel out of a bad deal is a good idea in front of the judge that's going to decide whether said law violated the clause of the Constitution that explicitly forbids that.

    A large part of why that argument worked in Miller was that everyone, their brother, and their dog knew that the reason that Nevada passed the law in question was in response to Jerry Tarkanian's loss at SCOTUS in '88. The push to allow students to own their own likeness has a much different background (for one, the NCAA lost the court case involved) - so I'm thinking that a "well, that's the deal" argument is going to play differently.

    Yeah, I mentioned it in an edit to the post you quoted at the top: It's going to hinge on whether the NCAA can convince the judge whether or not allowing collegiate athletes to accept endorsement deals and such would really mess with the NCAA's ability to enforce a level playing field. If the judge doesn't see that, then pretty much the whole argument falls apart.

    steam_sig.png
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Nirya wrote: »


    Literally the one good thing Chip Kelly has done this year.

    Texas Longhorns head coach has his own view on the matter:
    “I have been on record as saying I do believe that we need to find a way to get student-athletes more for their name, image and likeness,” Herman said, “but I don’t know the specifics of all that’s going on in California.”

    Prior to Monday, Herman most recently addressed the issue of student-athlete name, image and likeness during his weekly talk show two days before the Longhorns beat Oklahoma State, 36-30. Along with non-conference scheduling (specifically a unified scheduling model in order to gain clarity regarding qualifications for inclusion into the College Football Playoff), Herman said the NIL is one of the hot-button issues in college football he’s most passionate about discussing.

    Herman’s main point of contention regarding the NIL issue, he said, is the student-athletes themselves should be allowed to have control over something they own.

    “They own it and we don't own it and they need to be able to use it like anybody,” Herman said. “Just like the first-chair trombonist in the jazz band, he can he can go use his name, image and likeness all he wants and promote 'Johnny's Trombones' if he wants to.”

    But he's also from California so just another cause of dem librul commie californians invadin' Texas amirite

    raoADVy.png
    Gnome-InterruptusTicaldfjam
  • lwt1973lwt1973 King of Thieves SyndicationRegistered User regular
    If you want to read about the worst, and I mean, the worst argument against the California law, check out the Deadspin article about Darren Rovell.
    His argument against it is that it will cheapen...product endorsements. The athlete will get paid more than his/her fair market value to go to a school. I laughed a lot when reading this.
    While most of you seem to like the idea of college athletes getting paid for endorsements, I assure you this is not what will happen. The biggest money will be in sham endorsements. Agents talking to boosters to arrange fake endorsement deals that are merely recruiting bonuses.

    But are sham endorsements cheating? Oil guys in a B-to-B business with no consumer business giving a guy a $3M endorsement to go to Oklahoma State? Is that cheating if it’s under the guise of what was originally intended? Free market system for talent isn’t originally intended.

    Its cheating Andy because the rule that is being removed is to give players endorsements. That’s not what’s going to happen. They will get sham endorsements and it will serve as a recruitment bonus. So, it is cheating. With more $, will come disinterest by many in schooling.

    It will be cheating because a kid will get $1.1 million for a highway billboard in an SEC town that Kim Kardashian couldn’t even get $100,000 for.

    "He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    His "argument" is that wealthy boosters will use endorsements as vehicles to pay players. Which, well, sure - that's not surprising. His problem is that nobody else sees this as an issue, which is why he gets worked up in the thread. Which is utterly hilarious to watch.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    TicaldfjamLoisLane
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • lwt1973lwt1973 King of Thieves SyndicationRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    I'm guessing no because it still forbids the school from paying their athletes.

    "He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    lwt1973 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    I'm guessing no because it still forbids the school from paying their athletes.

    No, but if you don't think Phil Knight won't have endorsement deals for UO starters, you haven't been paying attention.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Captain Inertia
  • lwt1973lwt1973 King of Thieves SyndicationRegistered User regular
    lwt1973 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    I'm guessing no because it still forbids the school from paying their athletes.

    No, but if you don't think Phil Knight won't have endorsement deals for UO starters, you haven't been paying attention.

    "You get an endorsement and you get an endorsement and you get an endorsement!"

    "He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
    Jebus314LoisLane
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    lwt1973 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    I'm guessing no because it still forbids the school from paying their athletes.

    No, but if you don't think Phil Knight won't have endorsement deals for UO starters, you haven't been paying attention.

    I mean, let's be real here - Nike, Adidas, Under Armor are all going to have regional endorsement deals for starters for every major school they have a deal with. You think KJ Hamler or Sean Clifford won't have one the day the PA law goes through? That Tua Tagovailoa isn't going to get one? Or Jalen Hurts?

    The bigger thing is going to be the smaller schools players getting their own regional deals. The SMU's, Boise States, UNLV's etc. Or the less well known Power 5 guys. Rondale Moore out of Purdue is a good example there.

    My largest concern for all this is female athletes, because you know that they're gonna get inundated with all kinds of shady requests. Not that they may not already, but the risk/reward right now might not be worth it, compared to post legalization.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Ticaldfjam
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Then get an agent.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Then get an agent.

    Are you talking to me about the concern for female athletes? Because historically, agents haven't exactly been great to their female clients.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Then end female athletics.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Then end female athletics.

    thatescalatedquickly.jpg

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    MagellSmrtnikKruiteHeffling
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Then end female athletics.
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Then end female athletics.

    thatescalatedquickly.jpg

    Female athletes are exploited. Agents further exploit them. They may be pushed into shady requests if they try and sign deals for themselves. Seems bad all around with no good choices. Short of creating an athlete's union what options are left to protect those who would be exploited?

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    lwt1973 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Could a school sign an endorsement deal with their players under this law?

    I'm guessing no because it still forbids the school from paying their athletes.

    No, but if you don't think Phil Knight won't have endorsement deals for UO starters, you haven't been paying attention.

    I mean, let's be real here - Nike, Adidas, Under Armor are all going to have regional endorsement deals for starters for every major school they have a deal with. You think KJ Hamler or Sean Clifford won't have one the day the PA law goes through? That Tua Tagovailoa isn't going to get one? Or Jalen Hurts?

    The bigger thing is going to be the smaller schools players getting their own regional deals. The SMU's, Boise States, UNLV's etc. Or the less well known Power 5 guys. Rondale Moore out of Purdue is a good example there.

    My largest concern for all this is female athletes, because you know that they're gonna get inundated with all kinds of shady requests. Not that they may not already, but the risk/reward right now might not be worth it, compared to post legalization.

    The whole endorsement thing is overblown. We can't predict who will be all stars when teams are drafting in the NFL draft; so nobody who has any business sense is going to be paying $1 million dollars for any position coming out of high school. And if they do in the beginning here, they'll learn pretty quick it's a bad idea. What it does do is allow someone like Tua, who by his 2nd season, had the star power a business might sign up for endorsements, to make money off his talent and hard work. But there are only so many players in college like Tua. Also "Fake" endorsements exist today, this just brings them out of the dark.

    As for female athletes, what is a "shady request"?

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
    Gnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherFencingsax
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The NYT has a follow up piece on the signing and the politicking around it. This bit was very interesting:
    Indeed, the bill’s opponents faced a Capitol where views had hardened quickly, especially after the N.C.A.A.’s president, Mark Emmert, warned in June that California universities could be punished if the bill became law.

    “This is one of those issues that is nonpartisan,” said Skinner, whose bill drew support from Republicans in part because they saw a reliance on the markets to resolve what they perceived as a stark inequity.

    “They exploit young people to their detriment for a profit, and it’s offensive,” Wilk, a former trustee at a community college, said of the N.C.A.A.

    Years of public polling that showed rising support for compensating college athletes for their talents did not go unnoticed in Sacramento. Still, it was not until the final debate in the State Senate, lawmakers said, that the prospect of unanimous chambers became reality.

    Turns out that threatening legislators is not a good strategy! Who knew?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Kayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusButtersOghulk
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    His "argument" is that wealthy boosters will use endorsements as vehicles to pay players. Which, well, sure - that's not surprising. His problem is that nobody else sees this as an issue, which is why he gets worked up in the thread. Which is utterly hilarious to watch.

    Ha ha, wealthy boosters already find ways to pay players. So do companies like Adidas when Rick Pitino needs some extra cash to go to some recruits. I do love these purpose built naive hot takes though, that act as if allowing what olympic athletes already can do somehow pollutes the sterling reputation and squeaky clean history of big money college sports programs.

    Dark_Side on
    Shadowen
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    His "argument" is that wealthy boosters will use endorsements as vehicles to pay players. Which, well, sure - that's not surprising. His problem is that nobody else sees this as an issue, which is why he gets worked up in the thread. Which is utterly hilarious to watch.

    Ha ha, wealthy boosters already find ways to pay players. So do companies like Adidas when Rick Pitino needs some extra cash to go to some recruits. I do love these purpose built naive hot takes though, that act as if allowing what olympic athletes already can do somehow pollutes the sterling reputation and squeaky clean history of big money college sports programs.

    Should be good for Olympic sports programs, since most of the Olympic athletes who can make money never swim (it's usually swimming) collegiately. And those who do almost invariable leave to go pro so they can turn their talent into money after a year or two, like Katie Ledecky did.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    His "argument" is that wealthy boosters will use endorsements as vehicles to pay players. Which, well, sure - that's not surprising. His problem is that nobody else sees this as an issue, which is why he gets worked up in the thread. Which is utterly hilarious to watch.

    Ha ha, wealthy boosters already find ways to pay players. So do companies like Adidas when Rick Pitino needs some extra cash to go to some recruits. I do love these purpose built naive hot takes though, that act as if allowing what olympic athletes already can do somehow pollutes the sterling reputation and squeaky clean history of big money college sports programs.

    Should be good for Olympic sports programs, since most of the Olympic athletes who can make money never swim (it's usually swimming) collegiately. And those who do almost invariable leave to go pro so they can turn their talent into money after a year or two, like Katie Ledecky did.

    It's also worth pointing out that the modern Olympic endorsement system came out of pressures similar to those with the NCAA - for years, it was an open secret that the Soviet sphere basically stretched "amateur" to the breaking limit, with their athletes having everything taken care of for them.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FencingsaxBlackDragon480Martini_Philosopher
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It appears that California has broken the dam on paying players:
    Walker introduced a bill in March that would change federal tax code to prohibit the NCAA and its member schools from requiring college athletes to sign away the rights to their own name, image and likeness in order to play college sports. The bill would have the same effect on a national scale as a first-of-its-kind state law passed in California two weeks ago.

    Congress reconvened Tuesday for the first time since California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed his state's law, and on Wednesday politicians from both the House of Representatives and the Senate met to discuss the best way to move forward.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Martini_PhilosopherFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusShadowenOghulkLord_AsmodeusTNTrooperJragghenHefflingTrajan45JaysonFourGennenalyse Rueben
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Found this elsewhere and needed to repost:
    If you like sports, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you like higher education, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you don't like higher education, you should hate the NCAA, because if it weren't for the NCAA, you'd probably like it.

    If you hate all forms of sexual abuse up to and very much including the rape of children, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you hate smarmy self-righteousness, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you hate graft, corruption, and regulatory capture, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you hate institutionalized racism, you should hate the NCAA.

    If you like labor, you should hate the NCAA.

    Actually, I don't care how evil you are. Serial killer? Incel blogging about how we need a white ethnostate? Squid-headed Elder God awakening from your deep slumber to cleanse the earth with fire? There is literally no one who doesn't have at least a few good reasons to hate the NCAA.

    But I apologize for my mealy-mouthed moderate stance on the issue.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsButtersMartini_PhilosopherShadowenLord_AsmodeusTNTrooperBlackDragon480MagellJaysonFour
  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Registered User regular
    The NCAA has blinked



    I'm curious to see how they manage to screw this up.

    ShadowenGnome-InterruptusMartini_Philosopher
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »
    The NCAA has blinked



    I'm curious to see how they manage to screw this up.

    50% of all earned income must be..donated...to the NCAA.

    TicaldfjamSmrtnikMoridin889Butters
Sign In or Register to comment.