KU Trouble

[Aargh]

With the news that came out today, I can think of two great ideas.

1) 16-year old girls are not allowed in men's dorms unless accompanied by a parent.
2) Monkeys are not allowed on campus unless they are being studied in a class.

[Shocker Mama]

With the news that came out today, I can think of two great ideas.

1) 16-year old girls are not allowed in men's dorms unless accompanied by a parent.
2) Monkeys are not allowed on campus unless they are being studied in a class.

See? These situations can be avoided entirely if people just think of common-sense rules.

[RoyalShock]

See? These situations can be avoided entirely if people just think of common-sense rules.

Common sense was banned from college campuses years ago.

[Shocker Mama]

Common sense was banned from college campuses years ago.

That's a fact.

[WuDrWu]

At some point the NCAA just has to set a line, and live with it.

That's not fair. And why does the NCAA get to determine where that line is? That's not fair. Why didn't they ask me where I want the line? You? I don't think anyone has asked @MoValley John: where the line should be.

This whole thing is vastly unfair.

[WuDrWu]

That's a fact.

Pregnant man gives birth.

That's a fact.....

[WuDrWu]

With the news that came out today, I can think of two great ideas.

1) 16-year old girls are not allowed in men's dorms unless accompanied by a parent.
2) Monkeys are not allowed on campus unless they are being studied in a class.

Again, sadly, these ideas are common sense. Common sense is frowned upon today.

First, too many 16 year old girls will do anything they can to engage in social activity of that sort. Go to ANY and every high school, spend 10 minutes with a kid and their Exchangeogram and Facechat accounts and you'll see things that will turn your ass white.

Two, it was a dumbass student who apparently routinely brought the monkey to campus and had been seen many, many times.

[jdshock]

That's not fair. And why does the NCAA get to determine where that line is? That's not fair. Why didn't they ask me where I want the line? You? I don't think anyone has asked @MoValley John where the line should be.

This whole thing is vastly unfair.

It seems to me that you and @Kung Wu: are stumbling over my use of the word "unfair." I'm using it to be synonymous with "illegal" or "improper" benefits in terms of what is an unacceptable and acceptable benefit to give to college athletes.

Without thinking about it too much, I don't even think it's a lawsuit that a non-athlete could bring. It almost seems like it would have to be another NCAA school since they are all parties to the same contractual agreement with the NCAA.

[mjbaker84]

back to the monkey on WSU campus... I am pretty sure I have met the monkey and the owner when I looked at his vehicle for an insurance claim.

Anybody have his first or last name? The articles don't mention it... but I believe his initials are MM.

[Shocker Mama]

back to the monkey on WSU campus... I am pretty sure I have met the monkey and the owner when I looked at his vehicle for an insurance claim.

Anybody have his first or last name? The articles don't mention it... but I believe his initials are MM.

Not Markus McDuffie! He doesn't seem like a monkey-keeper, but I don't know him personally.

[jdshock]

back to the monkey on WSU campus... I am pretty sure I have met the monkey and the owner when I looked at his vehicle for an insurance claim.

Anybody have his first or last name? The articles don't mention it... but I believe his initials are MM.

The article I saw did mention his name, Muhamad Mansour, so it appears you would be correct: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article128645979.html

[Kung Wu]

It seems to me that you and @Kung Wu are stumbling over my use of the word "unfair." I'm using it to be synonymous with "illegal" or "improper" benefits in terms of what is an unacceptable and acceptable benefit to give to college athletes.

Without thinking about it too much, I don't even think it's a lawsuit that a non-athlete could bring. It almost seems like it would have to be another NCAA school since they are all parties to the same contractual agreement with the NCAA.

I was responding to your argument #2. You said that it's unfair because basketball players have a 100% chance of living in a killer apartment setup, while "normal" students only have a 1/20,000% chance of living in that same sweet setup. I find that to be a poor argument and demonstrated the absurdity of making it _completely_ fair. I realize you weren't advocating it to be _completely_ fair, but we should at least understand what that means in order to have that discussion.

Since we both know that _completely_ fair is totally unreasonable, then the question is ... what amount of fairness is enough? The NCAA said it considers it fair if at least 50% of the apartment complex is occupied by non-athletes, because it recognizes that total student enrollment is vastly different at many, many NCAA schools and arguments along those lines probably don't make any sense.

But if you think a percent of the enrollment is a key piece of the puzzle, would you consider something along the lines of 1/10,000, 1/5,000, or 1/2,000 to be fair enough? What ratio are you okay with?

[jdshock]

I was responding to your argument #2. You said that it's unfair because basketball players have a 100% chance of living in a killer apartment setup, while "normal" students only have a 1/20,000% chance of living in that same sweet setup. I find that to be a poor argument and demonstrated the absurdity of making it _completely_ fair. I realize you weren't advocating it to be _completely_ fair, but we should at least understand what that means in order to have that discussion.

Since we both know that _completely_ fair is totally unreasonable, then the question is ... what amount of fairness is enough? The NCAA said it considers it fair if at least 50% of the apartment complex is occupied by non-athletes, because it recognizes that total student enrollment is vastly different at many, many NCAA schools and arguments along those lines probably don't make any sense.

But if you think a percent of the enrollment is a key piece of the puzzle, would you consider something along the lines of 1/10,000, 1/5,000, or 1/2,000 to be fair enough? What ratio are you okay with?

I wrote a much longer response, but it's all so silly. I'm not actually advocating anything. I'm defending the idea that incredibly luxurious living conditions might count as an impermissible benefit for student athletes.

To simplify it as much as possible -- If we take it to the extreme, would a university be allowed to provide mansions with private staffs to their basketball team, so long as 15 random students also received similar mansions? Does that cross the "line" imposed by the NCAA?

If it does cross the line, then it is clear the line is not what you are proposing: any level of housing so long as 50% are non-athletes. Then the question becomes where is the line? Just how killer can the living conditions be before you cross the line?

If it does not cross the line, that's fine too. In a world where institutions cannot pay their athletes, it seems crazy to me that you could provide mansions to live in, but you couldn't place a stack of $100 bills on the bedside table, but maybe that is actually the rule.

[Kung Wu]

I wrote a much longer response, but it's all so silly. I'm not actually advocating anything. I'm defending the idea that incredibly luxurious living conditions might count as an impermissible benefit for student athletes.

To simplify it as much as possible -- If we take it to the extreme, would a university be allowed to provide mansions with private staffs to their basketball team, so long as 15 random students also received similar mansions? Does that cross the "line" imposed by the NCAA?

If it does cross the line, then it is clear the line is not what you are proposing: any level of housing so long as 50% are non-athletes. Then the question becomes where is the line? Just how killer can the living conditions be before you cross the line?

If it does not cross the line, that's fine too. In a world where institutions cannot pay their athletes, it seems crazy to me that you could provide mansions to live in, but you couldn't place a stack of $100 bills on the bedside table, but maybe that is actually the rule.

Sure, I am just talking about the absurdity of argument #2.

[jdshock]

Sure, I am just talking about the absurdity of argument #2.

That's the second argument. I'm saying a female athlete could make a sex discrimination claim, and this is the second argument that we're talking about.

You're misunderstanding the word "unfair" and the fractions that I put out there. The fractions are just a measurement of the amount of "benefit" a non-athlete receives. The level of housing doesn't matter if every student had the same. A school could provide every student a mansion as part of tuition, and that school would be good to go. The fractions were just me pointing that out. BOTH the number of students and the quality of the benefit have to come into play for this argument to make any sense, specifically because there's no way a school could get in trouble for providing awesome accommodations for every student on campus.

Maybe you didn't understand my first post. Maybe I even wrote it poorly, but this is the second argument that I'm saying could be made.