Kansas Crimson

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 9:52 am i can understand wanting to be unique, but if it’s pronounced the same way why make it difficult with crazy spellings?

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:14 pm no wonder my parents are upset at my career choice.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:44 am https://twitter.com/sinow/status/160888 ... p8lgU3aejw

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 12:01 pm Phew.

We dodged a bullet when we hired Front-Butt instead of this cheater...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 999739002/

In [making] life easier for investigators by moving a lot of their work to the schools that are charged, [NCAA vice president of enforcement Jon] Duncan casually dismisses the need for clearcut evidence of wrongdoing:

I do think it relieves us of the obligation to have a smoking gun in every case, to have some witness on the record say exactly what happened and why, or a damning text message or video — which occasionally you get, but not very often you get.

Having a smoking gun is important! The whole reason that idiom exists is because we've all repeatedly agreed that hard evidence matters and the presumption of innocence is worth protecting.

If the NCAA is looking to punish schools without actual proof of guilt, then they're just targeting behavior that seems suspicious, or feels like it's not on the level. It's a stupid way to run a judicial system (even a fake one), and while the organization could do without having a phony detective agency dedicated to limiting workers' pay in the first place, if they are going to have one, it could at least adhere to a basic principle of human rights. We live in a society, after all.

But it makes perfect sense why the NCAA wants more leeway in punishing the schools, administrators, and ultimately the players they see as offenders. As the overblown "wild west" cliche implies, the last year-and-a-half since NCAA v. Alston has led to probably the best time ever to be a college athlete. With new paths to making money that can benefit popular personalities in non-revenue sports and even keep major stars in school for longer, at least a little bit of the gross exploitation that literally defined college athletics has been lifted. But this relative worker freedom comes at the expense of some of the power the NCAA once held over its subjects. The old guard hasn't exactly been secretive about its displeasure with the new developments. Clearly, they're going to try whatever they can to reverse them.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:38 am Ha ya, a little too much creative writing.

The gist of it is, would we want Gradey back if it also meant Gradey becomes the poster child for some bold new NIL deal.