Bobref

Nice. Where’s that thick skin now? Education was the most important for me. But I’m not a kid from the inner city, a single parent family, who thinks he has a chance to monetize the fact that he can run a 4.3 40 and help his family, maybe tap into generational, life-changing wealth. You going to decide what’s most important for that kid?

Isn’t it a bit presumptuous for you to be deciding what’s most important for someone else? Someone whose circumstances may be radically different from what you view as the norm? Somehow, I just can’t square that with the philosophy of personal liberty and individual freedom of choice you’ve espoused when pushing your right wing political agenda over on the OOB. It’s quite the paradox.

We’ll see, Carnack.

Having a surplus of top flight talent at the position would be a nice problem to have.

So, we need to protect these kids from themselves … even though they are free to monetize their athletic prowess. That sort of paternalism doesn’t fly in 2021. Sounds a bit like a restraint of trade to me.

If college — including athletics — is intended to prepare young people for life after college, why shouldn’t student athletes have the same mobility options as people out in the world? It’s all about self-determination. If you’re going to try and keep athletics separate from real life, well … you should change your screen name to Sisyphus. 😉

Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone.”

Definitely agree. My question is why is the transfer portal considered so revolutionary, when it simply goes along with what is happening in our society in general?

Is this also the case in other sports, I wonder?

I’m glad he stayed at Michigan. College football is more interesting with him in it.

Sometimes I wonder if Harbaugh doesn’t actually relish his reputation as “quirky,” and do some things just because he can. I think he revels in his “differentness.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Missing the point, which is: whatever the reason, he can transfer and it would not be viewed the same way as an athlete entering the transfer portal .. even though the reasons may be very similar.

Athletics reflect society in microcosm. In general, the paradigm is different for young people today than it was for our generation. When I got out of law school, the paradigm in private practice was find a firm you liked, and that liked you. Work hard as an associate so you can make partner. Once you do, you’re invested in the firm, and the track was to stay there until you were ready to retire. Today, however, it is extremely rare to find a young lawyer who has been out of law school for 5 years and hadn’t had a couple of jobs. Our society is at an unprecedented time in terms of access to information and mobility. Why shouldn’t athletics be the same way? No one would bat an eye if the smartest student in the math program decided to transfer to MIT because their math department was better. What’s the difference?

I guess it is a question of expectations. Anyone who expected political leaders to be able to deal efficiently with a virus never seen before, let alone studied, amidst a global pandemic in the 21st Century, was always being unrealistic. Too many people think real life is like TV: “A global pandemic, but don’t worry, we’ll figure it out and have it handled by the next commercial break.” Science doesn’t work that way. It especially doesn’t when you add in all the politicos who sought to make political hay out of the pandemic.

Don’t forget the Trilateral Commission, and I’m sure the Pope is somehow involved, too.

The smartest QB in NFL history was likely Dr. Frank Ryan, who was the QB for the Browns in the ‘60s, including guiding them to the NFL championship in 1964. He was a Ph.D. and taught university mathematics courses at Case in the morning while also going to practice with the Browns in the afternoon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_(American_football)#Academic_career

Obviously not.

Forrest Gump was right: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

The NFL and the Bills contributing $550 million and $850 million public funds. Cue @Muda69.

What? And give up an opportunity to spout some more trite phrases according to the party line?

It’s not about the truth. It’s about sound bites that people can mindlessly repeat, and they think that makes them look smart.

I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control. Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that. Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018

I think you and I have had that discussion.

Oh, there’s a “f*cking laughing stock,” revealed alright.

I’m sure I’ve got the answer. I just can’t figure out your question. 🤣😉