Home / General / Be Exploited By the People You Know!

Be Exploited By the People You Know!

Comments
/
/
/
616 Views

Ahead of today’s vote at Northwestern, the actions of proponents of the NCAA’s indefensible status quo were predictable:

The president emeritus publicly said that a vote for the union could mean the end of Division I sports at Northwestern. A former quarterback visited the team to encourage players to vote no. Coach Pat Fitzgerald, a former football star who is revered on campus, has framed a vote for the union as a personal betrayal.

“Understand that by voting to have a union, you would be transferring your trust from those you know — me, your coaches and the administrators here — to what you don’t know — a third party who may or may not have the team’s best interests in mind,” Fitzgerald wrote to the team in an email.

And don’t kid yourself: the people and organizations reaping huge amounts of money off of your unpaid, physically taxing labor, and yet impose extraordinary rules that prevent you from even being compensated by third parties, totally have only your interests at heart.

In an entirely unrelated note, Pat Fitzgerald is currently working under a 10 year contract paying him nearly $2 million a year. Oddly, the Noble Ideals of Amateurism do not forbid him from being paid for endorsements.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Katya

    You might want to proof that block quote again.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Why?

      • Scott Lemieux

        Ah, yes.

  • Autonomous Coward

    Interesting that at no point did Fitzie assert that he (or anyone else in his list of those the team “knows” and presumably now trusts) actually have the players’ interests at heart.

    • Henk

      Why is it interesting? That someone you know would have a better understanding of the team and by extension the player’s needs is very clearly implied. Why would it need to be explicitly stated?

      • Autonomous Coward

        Go NORTHWESTERN UNDIFFERENTIATED EGO-MASS! Beat Wisconsin!

      • MaxUtil

        He’s implying that the union wouldn’t have “the team’s” best interests at heart…which is totally true. The union would represent the players, i.e. those members of “the team” that are currently getting screwed. It’s interesting because he’s being inadvertently honest.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Yeah, it’s a real masterpiece of dissembling.

      • Sam

        Henk, you and Fitzgerald both neglected to claim that someone you know will automatically have your interests at heart. And perhaps for the same reason–it’s laughably untrue.

      • JGabriel

        Henk: That someone you know would have a better understanding of the team and by extension the player’s needs is very clearly implied. Why would it need to be explicitly stated?

        Maybe because Fitzgerald is making $2 milliom/yr while the people he’s talking to get a pittance, if that?

        I’m just guessing.

        .

    • Royko

      In his mind, they all owe fealty to “the team”, the needs of which are more important than any single player, or, somewhat paradoxically, the collection of players.

      It’s a very sports-centric attitude — do what’s right for “the team”, do what your coach tells you (because the coach is, in a sports sense, the leader and sometimes embodiment of “the team”.)

      Unfortunately, that whole perspective breaks down the second you are running an (essentially) professional league and are in a classic labor-management situation.

      (And it’s no wonder why so many employers have adopted “team” as a sports metaphor. “We’re a team! Do what’s best for the team! Think of the team first!”)

      • brad

        Goes well beyond sports. It’s basically an appeal to authoritarian instincts.

        Stay in your place, daddy still loves you (and owns you).

        • UserGoogol

          Fascism might be a better word than authoritarian. It’s not just about obeying authority, but about the idea that people have an obligation to submit to the collective of the team, with the leadership of the team just being how the team is structured. That being subsumed into the sacred union of organized sports is what gives life meaning. Sports isn’t really the only thing that has this attitude, but its macho “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” attitude is very different from typical workplace politics.

      • bluefoot

        I applaud your use of “fealty” in this context.

      • Brandon

        “Labor collectivization is terrible, you should all sacrifice individually for the team!!!”

        Can’t say ideological consistency is on the side of the NCAA/schools/coaches here, either.

      • Team referred to a group of working animals, and by analogy a group of working humans, before it was used in sports. It’s definitely absorbed some of the sports connotation over time, though.

        • Lee Rudolph

          Team referred to a group of working enslaved animals

          FTFY.

          • Wrye

            Two legs bad.

  • Patronizing =/= Patronage.

    It’s like listening to the GOP address minorities.

  • wjts

    Oddly, the Noble Ideals of Amateurism do not forbid him from being paid for endorsements.

    I strongly support the idea of not paying coaches in the interest of the Noble Ideals of Amateurism.

    • Michael C

      That’s not fair. They do professional work. I strongly support paying coaches xx what their players are paid. Oh wait….

      • drkrick

        When big-time coaches are willing to work for the cash value of a scholarship we can discuss whether that’s a good deal for the players.

        • wjts

          As I compromise, I’d accept having both players and coaches be work-study students.

          • N__B

            As long as the coaches regularly receive concussions and injured joints, sure.

            • Autonomous Coward

              Set enough campus cops to patrolling the dorms and we’ll all only be left with injured joints soon enough.

  • Armando

    Slaveowners made the same argument pre Civil War.

    • Sargasso Sink

      And Cliven Bundy made the same argument as to slaveowners pre-today.

  • Denverite

    The president emeritus publicly said that a vote for the union could mean the end of Division I sports at Northwestern.

    What’s that saying? Feature, not a bug?

    • Steve LaBonne

      Yeah, as an alum (grad school) I definitely vote for “feature”. My sister, a biology professor there, would agree.

    • Brandon

      I haven’t seen much talk about that, so maybe I’m missing something, but the athletic program’s and the NCAA’s tax-exempt status seems to be contingent on these sports still being classified as “amateur.” If the NLRB ruling holds on appeal and these players really are classified as employees, does that jeopardize their tax-exempt status?

      • cpinva

        “If the NLRB ruling holds on appeal and these players really are classified as employees, does that jeopardize their tax-exempt status?”

        the entities in question are exempt under IRC 501(c)(3), as “educational” activities. those types of entities can certainly have paid employees, without affecting their tax exempt status.

  • Robert M.

    Of course it’s just a complete coincidence how much these guys sound like, e.g., the response of Wal-mart to a union rep or Tennessee state politicians to the Volkswagen vote.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      Exactly. For people committed to the proposition that D-I football players aren’t employees, they’re sure behaving an awful lot like employers whose employees have a union election coming up.

  • eastcoast lib

    Football players are notoriously tribal. Of all the premier athletes, they are get exploited the most, have the shortest careers, are exposed to more career ending injuries, and earn the least. I fully expect them to vote “no” on unionization. The question is, why football players? Why not ask, say the Women’s Basketball team? I suspect they’re smart enough to see through the self serving bial from their overlords. Football players? Unfortunately, not so much.

    • DrS

      Why football? Willie Sutton has an answer for you.

      • Autonomous Coward

        That’s where the foots are?

        • rea

          Reporter: “Mr. Sutton, why did you rob so many shoe stores?”

          Willie Sutton: “Because that’s where the foots are!”

          No, it does not work.

          • Autonomous Coward

            It might if you gave the salespeople bone saws.

    • drkrick

      Only a few women’s basketball teams generate much revenue, thus it’s easier to argue that whatever they get in the way of scholarships and medical care is more or less a gift.

  • Denverite

    Scott, I’m curious (not trying to make a point).

    Everyone agrees that DI schools horribly exploit men’s football and basketball players, and these sports leagues probably shouldn’t exist in current form. But what about the vast majority of non-revenue sports? There are so many volleyball players and swimmers and runners and wrestlers who aren’t being taken advantage of — they’re either benefiting with a free education they want but otherwise wouldn’t have, or increasingly with respect to non-revenue men’s sports, which offer very few scholarships, they competing just because they enjoy it.

    Anyway, my question is: How do we restructure the NCAA to eliminate the awful way football and basketball programs are taking advantage of young men, without doing away with all of the men’s and women’s non-revenue sports (which generally don’t)?

    • TribalistMeathead

      There are so many volleyball players and swimmers and runners and wrestlers who aren’t being taken advantage of — they’re either benefiting with a free education they want but otherwise wouldn’t have, or increasingly with respect to non-revenue men’s sports, which offer very few scholarships, they competing just because they enjoy it.

      I think that’s only because they can afford not to exploit their players, because a) as you noted, they’re not generating large amounts of revenue for the school and b) they’re not subject to the same scruting from inside and outside that football/basketball programs are subject to.

    • Steve LaBonne

      Why should scholarships be given as a reward for playing a game? Surely financial aid can be targeted far more usefully than that. And as for the kids playing non-revenue sports for enjoyment, great! But what does that have to do with Division I? There are plenty of club sports at DIII schools, you know. The NCAA, and “major” college sports, need to be abolished, not “restructured”. They have nothing to do with the purpose of a university.

      • Denverite

        There are plenty of club sports at DIII schools, you know.

        Sure. There are also intercollegiate sports — and in a lot of the “minor” sports, they’re nearly as competitive as the DI teams. In track and cross country, for example, take away the handful of athletes on the team with full or nearly full scholarships, and most DI and DIII programs look pretty similar.

      • LeeEsq

        Universities have different purposes in different countries. Many of the elite schools of today were basically elaborate boarding schools where elite young men and women socialized for four years until after WWII. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s comment about Princeton being the most pleseant country club in the United States is very relevant here. Even the less elite college had a decent element of this if old media is anything to go on. Its not that American universities didn’t produce scholarship but that wasn’t the point.

      • medrawt

        Exactly – there’s a nested series of issues here, at the bottom of which is a particularly thorny question: should college admissions be based on anything other than academic potential, and should financial aid reward anything other than the intersection of academic potential and family need? I think the answer to the first half is “yes, it’s worthwhile,” and to the second half is “maybe,” though they’re both pretty arguable points (and the actual history of how we wound up here involves a lot of steps that sound something like “But Harvard didn’t want to have to admit Jewish people, so …”).

        But the specific idea of giving someone a scholarship because they’re a good swimmer or what have you (let alone football) is something I think is really hard to support. In the ideal world, if the swimmer is academically capable and needs assistance, they should get assistance anyway. In the unideal world we occupy, I still feel like ultimately there have to be better ways to distribute resources.

        • efgoldman

          But the specific idea of giving someone a scholarship because they’re a good swimmer or what have you (let alone football) is something I think is really hard to support.

          Music schools give scholarships to superior oboe players; institutes of technology give scholarships to superior young physicists, etc. Attracting the best students attracts other top students in the same field. Why shouldn’t it apply to e.g. swimmers?
          Now D1 football and hoops is another matter; the relationship is almost purely exploitative.

          • Kalil

            If you’re a music major, then being a really good oboe player is relevant. If you’re a business major, it is not. No oboe player, however good, can or should expect to get a scholarship in a non-oboe-related field.

            At my maritime academy, we referred to the athletes as ‘businessball’ students – literally the entire basketball mens and womens basketball teams, and over half the soccer and rugby teams, were in the ‘business’ major, and probably about a third of the business students were athletes. The major suffered badly as a result, and many of those students failed to graduate, despite massive, blatant cheating and heavy-handed attempts to ‘focus’ tutoring and other resources on their academic performance.

            I’m all for giving swimming scholarships for swimming majors. If your college lacks a swimming major, though… Perhaps the top swimming students should go elsewhere.

      • L2P

        Why stop at college? Let’s get rid of High School sports, too! What does track have to do with learning calculus?

        I’m not sure what you’re even talking about. Sports and college go together just fine, except for the money.

        • JoyfulA

          Yes, let’s get rid of high school sports, too. Why shouldn’t Little League sports continue as outside-the-school sports until the kids grow up and get paid?

          • L2P

            Yes, I’ve always thought only the rich should play sports. A 14u+ travel team (ironically, using, largely, fields that the schools maintain for their programs) can cost over $200/player per month.

          • Autonomous Coward

            Not sure if this is bait so if it is, har-har: troll-shit on my boot, but yes.

            There is little reason to place the burden of non-PE sports facilities and teams (which become budgetary sacred cows) on school finances.

            And that’s not even to say that there shouldn’t be a role for public financing in youth sports, but it isn’t a primary function of schools.

            • LeeEsq

              Neither are most extra-curricular activities or social events like proms but they have been part of high school life in America for a long time. Good luck getting rid of them.

              • Drew

                Yeah…somehow I don’t think the debate team or the key club have nearly the same impact on school finances.

          • navarro

            i don’t know how common this is in places outside of texas, but successful high school football teams in larger districts here bankroll every other sport that exists in the district. keeping in mind that anecdote is not the singular of data, i can tell you that in the school district i teach in the football team has won 3 state championships in the past 12 years, two of those back to back. the district took out a $4.5 million bond issue to build a new stadium after the first championship and paid off the issue 15 years faster than it was scheduled to, paid for all other competitive sports, and helped the district avoid layoffs when the state decided to cut educational spending by a third a few years ago. i’m not particularly a fan of any sports but it is impressive what a money machine it can be here. it’s hard to imagine anybody in my district voluntarily eliminating sports because of all the freaking money it brings in.

            then again, this is texas and as a liberal democrat who insists on being heard i’m used to being outside what passes for the mainstream. even though the phrase originated with a british football player the people around here have made the motto “some people think football is a matter of life or death but we all know it’s more important than that” a deep part of their belief structure.

            personally i think college athletes should unionize but then again i think the teachers here should be unionized too–call me crazy.

      • GoDeep

        I don’t think you’ve considered the Title IX implications of this action, much less the racial implications.

        Roughly half of all D1 black students are athletes. You’re proposing that D1 mirror D3. Well D3 gives out no scholarships. D2 gives out 60% fewer scholarships. What you’re suggesting is the demolition of black college students.

        And what is this elitist tripe that athletics has nothing to do with the university?

      • Kalil

        Why should scholarships be given as a reward for playing a game?

        This, 100x over. I don’t expect special treatment for my own gaming hobbies, however good at them I might be. But since computer games are /real mens/ entertainment…

        At the maritime academy I graduated from, I once proposed that, in the spirit of the noble tradition of excusing rugby and basketball players from watchstanding duty on game/practice/bad hair days, I should be given the Portal 2 release day off. That went over about as well as you’d expect.

    • Jonas

      Most, not all, but most DI schools lose money on football. If, say, DI football ceased to exist, most other DI sports would be on better financial footing. And the women’s crew coach and the men’s fencing coach aren’t being paid 7 figures and racking up money on endorsements while encouraging ‘sacrifice’ from the athletes. There really are student-athletes out there, but the more lucrative the sport, the less likely the student part plays into the equation, because someone who is earning the money needs the athletes to do more work. Look at the NAIA colleges, they have tons of sports with students who are not being exploited.

      • JustRuss

        As someone at a D1 school who has been involved with our mediocre football program for over a decade, I don’t agree that most football programs lose money. It’s possible they do so on paper, as there are lots of ways to slice and dice the revenues and expenses, but my perception is that football is the cash cow that keeps the other programs alive.

        If you have links to evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested to check them out.

        • L2P

          It’s hard to believe football is needed to keep the Cross Country team in shorts and jerseys.

          Only the top 40 programs (football AND basketball, combined) produce much positive cash flow for the university. Once you get down to the bottom half of the power conferences, and the top-tier mid-majors, you’re talking less than a million or so a year. After about 70, the cash flow is negative. And that’s with pretty creative accounting.

          Only 22 athletic departments operate in the black. It’s highly unlikely that many universities can fund much with their football or basketball programs.

          There’s a ton of literature on this, you can google it yourself.

          • efgoldman

            Only 22 athletic departments operate in the black. It’s highly unlikely that many universities can fund much with their football or basketball programs.

            Does that take into account the new multi-billion dollar TV contracts? And the shared revenues from e.g. the Pac12 network, the B1G network, and the brand new SEC network going up in August?

          • JustRuss

            Sure, shorts and jerseys are pretty cheap. Salaries for the 17 head coaches of our intercollegiate programs and their staffs, the athletic director and his staff, plus food, travel and scholarships? Not so much.

            Our program is mid-level in a power conference, so my perspective is admittedly a bit skewed. But Jonas said most programs lose money, you say 70 out of 124 are profitable, so I stand by my assertion that football is not a loser for most D1 schools. Financially anyways.

            • GoDeep

              The stats are online. You’re both right. Football provides ~80% of athletic department revenue, so you’re right that your football program is raking in the dollars. But even so most football programs are unprofitable and by most I mean any outside of the Top 20 or so. USA Today has an excellent piece with data up. ESPN also discusses this and the Dept of Ed has lots and lots of data available (via the ESPN series). Try Google.

      • GoDeep

        Football programs generate 60-80% of athletic revenue. If football is unprofitable, how unprofitable is Women’s Softball? You’re not going to fund a Women’s Softball team if you take away 80% of athletic dept revenue.

        • A Virginian

          Of course the costs are wildly different too. For example, UVa’s softball team has a total of 3 coaches; I am going to guess none of them make even six figures. UVa’s football team has 10 coaches and 3 graduate assistants. And the head coach makes $2.7M — likely more than the entire softball budget. Then compare facilities, equipment costs, need for trainers and other paid support staff, etc.

          Generating 60-80% of revenue means diddly squat when you also generate 60-80% of the costs.

          • GoDeep

            The data begs to disagree. I pulled one school at random: U of Missouri. For the year ended June ’13, the football program made up 41% of athletic dept revenue but only 25% of costs. So eliminating football would mean 11% less money for the athletic dept, not more money.

            To see a non-SEC school I took a look at U of MD as well and it was the same story. Even at a C-USA school like UTEP it was the same.

            • Aimai

              Oh, look, its like trickle down economic theory. What makes you assert that the extra 11 percent goes to other sports at all? As far as I know the facilities that the football teams use are not open to other sports players nor do the coaches or trainers work with the other sports players. Its more likely that the football monies are kept separate and not counted towards the athletic departments at all as (perhaps) are many of the costs associated with football.

              • GoDeep

                Any individual school is free to do what it wants. But in general the football team supports the other programs. Particularly in light of Title IX obligations, its a conscious budget strategy. USA Today has done a lot of good reporting on this subject.

    • L2P

      Nothing requires that all college athletes be treated as employees because football and basketball players are.

      An “employee” is, basically, someone doing work for hire. Non-revenue-generating athletes don’t have a strong case that they are “hired” to do any work. They don’t produce revenues and, as you note, they largely do it because they enjoy it. There’s not even the argument that college sports is keeping, say, an NCAA volleyball player out of an otherwise-lucrative professional career.

      I don’t think you need a bright-line rule. Sports that generate tons of money and compete with professional leagues for entertainment dollars are pretty clearly hiring workers, one way or another, to compete. Sports that are struggling to buy jerseys and can’t compete with the stronger High School programs for resources probably aren’t.

      • Denverite

        Got it. I guess my thought is that it’s unlikely that we’ll see college football and basketball remain in the NCAA structure, just with the rule change that players allowed to be paid whatever they can negotiate (individually or collectively).

      • GoDeep

        Non-revenue-generating athletes don’t have a strong case that they are “hired” to do any work.

        This is ludicrous. You’re defining “employee” based no revenue generation? If that’s the case I’m immediately re-classifying the janitors at my bldg as volunteers and telling the SEIU they can’t represent them.

        They don’t produce revenues and, as you note, they largely do it because they enjoy it.

        You’re right. Johnny Football looks like he positively hates college football. Him and Famous Jameis both. We really should arrest those guys who enslaved them and made them do something they so clearly hate.

    • Royko

      I don’t know that it’s all that complicated. If you remove restrictions that prevent players from being paid (for athletics or non-athletics), you’ve pretty much eliminated the exploitation. I suspect there would have to be some sort of collective bargaining arrangement so that they could negotiate things like caps to prevent a breakdown in parity (to the extent that Div I sees parity.)

      Non-revenue athletes would just go along as they have been. If any of them think they could command compensation, they could certainly organize and negotiate.

      There are those who say to make up for higher player costs in football and basketball, schools would make it up by cutting non-revenue sports. That’s certainly possible, but the two aren’t really connected. Schools could just as easily make up the difference by raising tuition, or eliminating some administrative positions, or academic programs, or whatever. The bottom line is: if they want to fund volleyball, they’ll fund volleyball.

      • GoDeep

        The bottom line is: if they want to fund volleyball, they’ll fund volleyball.

        You don’t remember the days before Title IX much do you?

      • GoDeep

        Also, the exploitation involved here is not the lack of compensation. After all these kids get 3 square meals a day and a free education. That’s damn lucrative. The exploitation is that at any moment they may sustain a career ending injury for which their medical insurance might be insufficient, and for which they don’t even have disability insurance.

        • Drew

          After all these kids get 3 square meals a day

          You mean like Shabazz Napier?

          • GoDeep

            I’d be shocked if that was true. My school had a rump of a sports program and the athletes ate better than anyone else on campus–by far. I had $25 to pay for food, fun, movies, for my entire weekend. The athletes–and half my close friends were athletes–never had to think about paying for meals, much less worry about it like I did. Most schools have designated cafeterias for athletes.

            • GoDeep

              But don’t take my word for it:

              Dennis Pierce, director of Food Services at UConn, tells CNSNews.com that any student-athlete would have the option of choosing from a series of dining services (unlimited, value and custom), but all offer unlimited access during operating hours.

              The dining services website for the university notes that “all residence dining units are all-you-care-to-eat facilities.”</blockquote>

    • mpowell

      How about you just get rid of the NCAA. Colleges can develop new organizations for managing the rules of collegiate sports. Organizations that don’t have an extensive history of rank exploitation and labor law violations. Schools can figure out for themselves whether giving kids scholarships to play highly competitive non-football/basketball sports makes sense for them or not. And then labor law can determine what kind of rules are appropriate for different types of student-athletes.

      The idea that only the NCAA can run college sports is highly uninformed. It’s just a bullshit organization that succeeded at a power grab a few decades ago by securing tv rights for college football. And has been leveraging their incumbency advantage ever since.

      • efgoldman

        How about you just get rid of the NCAA.

        That’s pretty much the direction the BCS conferences (or whatever they’re being called this year) are moving.

  • Mike

    Denverite, its easy to fix the problems with non-revenue sports.

    In the absense of revenue from football and basketball, many of the nonrevenue sports will cease to exist, at least in the way they are now structured. Most of the money/scholarships/prestige in college athletics will be dropped to a D3/NAIA level. Which is probably where college atheletics belongs in the first place.

    • Denverite

      Ironically, if you eliminated football, it becomes much easier to field men’s teams in the minor sports, and much less advantageous to field women’s teams, from a Title IX perspective.

    • L2P

      The revenue from football and basketball?

      A lot of DI programs operate at a loss or break even. And for Gawd’s sake, it’s not a huge monetary commitment to field a Cross Country team.

      • Denverite

        This was my point. The reason a lot of schools don’t have a men’s cross country team isn’t financial (they usually are already paying a coach for the women’s team, and most male participants are walk-ons). It’s because the extra fifteen male athletes make it more difficult to get under the Title IX safe harbor.

        • Denverite

          (Btw, I’m not criticizing Title IX in this regard. The majority of minor men’s sports offer plenty of club or non-university-affiliated opportunities to compete.)

        • BD

          Can you not just have a combined male/female track team and have them assigned to different events when they get to their meet? If male runners have a problem with being coached by a woman…tough luck?

          • Denverite

            A number of men’s track teams are coached by women. I never had a female coach (I ran up through my sophomore year of college at a DI school), and would be a little unusual today.

            The problem is legal. The easiest way for a school to ensure Title IX compliance (and immunize itself from a lawsuit) is to have male/female participation in all sports that is substantially proportionate to the male/female ratio in the student body. These days, women make up the majority of the student body, plus football means that men generally start off with 75+ more participants than women do before all of the other sports are tallied up. That means schools are incentivized to cut men’s sports to get the ratio down independent of cost. Track and cross country are especially popular to cut for men (and keep for women) because because many of the participants (the middle and long distance runners) are “triple counted” — they participate in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track seasons.

      • GoDeep

        Take away 80% of the cash (which is provided by football) and you take away 80% of the scholarships. This is nothing more than the elimination of D1 sport. And I think its a quite elitist proposition to say that sports don’t belong at the D1 level.

  • Gwen

    See the good news here is that impressionable young college kids are going to learn early on that anti-union propaganda is transparently ridiculous and emotionally-manipulative.

  • N__B

    Always remember: there’s no I in TEAM, but there are two Us in FUCK YOU.

    • rea

      And you can’t have a TEAM without MEAT.

      • wjts

        Or TEAMWORK without an EWOK.

      • Tom Scudder

        You can’t spell “Team” without “M-E”.

  • This is totally unsurprising. I’m an organizer in a TA union that’s had a contract with the university for more than ten years now, and I’ve lost count of the number of times I run across TAs who are still being fed anti-union messages by their professors, administrators, etc. that “I don’t need a union; my department takes care of me.”

  • Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #111:

    Treat people in your debt like family: Exploit them.

  • bubba

    Yes many DI football and basketball programs operate at a loss. But the devil is in the details. If those schools did not overpay their coaches, and if they did not overpay for facilities they do not need or can’t fill because they made poor decisions to increase the prestige of the school, or if the NCAA did not demand unnecessary stadium specs/size, and if they did not run dubious facility costs thru the sports admin budget, most are likely very profitable.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone who rises in an institution, be it corporate, government, religious, education, military, whatever, understands down to their marrow that one must stay within the bounds of that organizations hierarchy.

    People who do not accept this often do not even attempt to rise within the hierarchy but if they do they do not rise much. Absolute loyalty to the institution is a given.

    The bishops and cardinals or Penn State administrators never for a moment considered doing the right thing, legally or ethicly, in order to protect their institution, which is the highest goal. That’s why while blowers are so hated. The are disloyal to their organization and its hierarchy. Just today Hillary kicked Snowden. Of course she did. Just like the sun rises in the East.

    Individuals are losers.

    • Stag Party Palin

      I call Fake Anonymous.

      • Rhino

        Sure as fuck isn’t jenny.

    • Rhino

      Tragically right on the money.

  • Pingback: What I’m Reading, April 29, 2014 | Cryptic Philosopher()

  • Pingback: I think, perhaps, links tonight | Fraser Sherman's Blog()

  • Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this website, because i wish for enjoyment,
    as this this site conations in fact pleasant funny stuff too.

  • Pingback: Doomsy’s Do-Gooders and Dregs (2014 – Pt. 4) | The Liberal Doomsayer()

It is main inner container footer text