uh wut?

...
The flagship school in the area in the flagship conference. Good things a happening.

What school are you talking about? What flagship? Oklahoma, KU, Missouri?

Considering State runs show in Kansas due to football and everyone knows the SEC is supreme...you do the math

Maybe put something in your trophy case then come talk to "flagships". Until then...peace

whoops...

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/qirh...CIAAt7Mz.0.jpg

LMAO

Close enough I guess.

I just figured out Pasta is PGM. I am slow yes but I knew there was a reason I kept skipping all his posts. The "pilgrim" comment finally tipped me off. What a waste of human flesh.

ahhhhhh, gotcha. His avatar does make me hungry though.

Heads-up, the judge in the O'Bannon case just handed down a decision. This ruling is long and dense, I'm reading it now.

It appears the NCAA lost in some way, but not sure what the ruling means or what the order is yet.

OK, I just finished the highlights. Not surprisingly, the media is screwing up the reporting on this. (ESPN said the judge ruled that the NCAA can not restrict compensation to college athletes, which is just simply dead wrong)

This was a win for the players, but the NCAA was able to limit the damages. The NCAA must compensate FBS football and D1 men's basketball players for their name, image, and likeness, but she ruled that they can restrict this compensation to $5,000 per year, and that they can hold the money in trust for the player until they leave school, rather than paying the player while in school.

What happened was this: the NCAA was arguing that they didn't have to pay the players at all for their image, name, and likeness, and the players were basically arguing for no restrictions which may have led to the wild, wild west where schools could offer big money to recruits. The judge disagreed with the NCAA and ruled that they were violating the Sherman Act. However, the NCAA had a backup plan. They argued that although they do not believe the players should win, in the event that the court disagreed, the NCAA came up with a possible remedy and asked the judge to limit the remedy to that. The judge looked at the NCAA's proposed remedy, thought it was reasonable, and told the players they had to accept the NCAA's offered remedy.

So basically the NCAA came up with the remedy that the judge is now imposing. In court NCAA witnesses testified that if they were able to limit payments for players likeness to only "a few thousand per year", then their concerns would be mostly mitigated. The judge took "a few thousand" to mean "$5,000".

The only argument that the judge took somewhat seriously was the idea that if rich schools could pay recruits a tremendous amount of money, then that could hurt demand and competitiveness for the sport, which is why she agreed that the NCAA had a very good, legitimate reason to limit it to $5,000/year above the financial aid. I imagine that number will need to go up with inflation and higher TV deals.

That whole nonsense about needing to preserve amateurism was laughed off and quickly dismissed in the ruling.

What are pieces of shit like you and Bambino then?

NBC Sports

Those 2 idiots should stop posting out of sheer embarrassment. Sec and the posters here continue to clown them. 91 million wowzers.