ESPN Town Hall

[kerssens]

Anybody watching this right now? John Thompson is kickin ass. Also, college players shouldn't be paid but their scholarships should completely cover their tuition and living expenses.

[Jack of Arcades]

Thomson.

[kerssens]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomson.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Thompson......ass (http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/ThompsonJohn.htm)

[Jack of Arcades]

Oh, I had no idea what you were talking about. And neither does anyone else, apparently.

[kerssens]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I had no idea what you were talking about. And neither does anyone else, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you felt that you could correct me??

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Thompson......ass

[/ QUOTE ]

Jackass!!!!!!!!

[Jack of Arcades]

Yeah, that's what OOT's all about. Duh.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Yeah, that's what OOT's all about. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

it helps when you're right. just read my posts.

[kerssens]

True true....also pissing matches over completely inane subjects.

[Jack of Arcades]

I tend to skip them over unless someone confirms before hand that yes, daryn is right.

[Clarkmeister]

Saw this on another forum.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Harvard economics professor Robert Barro.

Here is an excerpt from his Wall Street Journal Column in 1991, where he and panel of Harvard economists decided to choose the best operating monopoly in America from the USPS, OPEC, cable TV, Ivy League schools, and the NCAA. This made me totally rethink my position:

[....The final contestant, the NCAA, has been remarkably successful in holding down "salaries" paid to college athletes. It would be one thing merely to collude to determine price ceilings (for example, to restrict payments so that they not exceed tuition plus room and board and some minor additional amount), but the NCAA has also managed to monopolize all the moral arguments.
Consider a poor ghetto resident who can play basketball well, but not well enough to make it to the NBA. If there were no NCAA, this player might be able legitimately to accumulate a significant amount of cash during a four-year career. But the NCAA ensures that the player will remain poor after four years and, moreover, has convinced most observers that it would be morally wrong for the college to pay the player a competitively determined wage for his or her services.
For many economists, this interference with competition--in a setting that has no obvious reasons for market failure--is itself morally repugnant. But the outrage is compounded here because the transfer is clearly from poor ghetto residents to rich colleges. Compare the stiuation of contestant number 4, the Ivy League universities, in which the transfer from rich to poor students can readily be supported on Robin Hood grounds.
The NCAA has the much more difficult task of defending a policy that prevents many poor individuals from earning money. Incredibly, this defense has been so successful that it has even allowed the organization to maintain the moral high ground. When the NCAA maintains its cartel by punishing schools that violate the rules (by paying too much), almost no one doubts that the evil entities are the schools or people who paid the athletes, rather than the cartel enforcers who prevented the athletes from getting paid. Given this extraordinary balancing act, the decision of the panelists was straightforward and the NCAA is the clear and deserving winner of the first annual prize for the best monopoly in America. (end)]

I find it hilarious that the NCAA beats out OPEC.

[/ QUOTE ]

[daryn is right]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's what OOT's all about. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

it helps when you're right. just read my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahem. *cough* What he said.